Hi Jeff,
Thank you very much for your reminder.
We will address Yimin's comments.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 4:32 PM
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; Yimin Shen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-hu-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection
Yimin,
Thank you for bringing this up!
Authors - please do address Yimin’s comments.
Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 15, 2020, 11:23 AM -0800, Yimin Shen
<[email protected]>, wrote:
Hi authors,
I’d like to suggest this draft to reference RFC 8679.
In particular, RFC 8679 as a generic EP framework with a lot of general
discussions (see the points below), which are applicable to both MPLS and IPv6
data plane, and all types of transport tunnels. However, this draft seems to
have almost no consideration or discussion on these topics. I don’t think the
draft needs to repeat these discussions, but I suggest to add a section(s) to
discuss these points generally by referencing RFC 8679.
* general scope and requirements
* transport layer failure/protection vs. service layer failure/protection
* applicability
* failure detection mechanisms
* egress node protection
* egress link protection
* relationship between EP and global repair
* co-existing of different types of transport tunnels and bypass tunnels
* security
Thanks,
-- Yimin Shen
Juniper Networks
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
