Hi Mirja, - Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the > approach proposed, this > document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the > entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit > on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset." > Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem > inaccurate. > [Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then?
Actually, I don't see the term 'recommends' anywhere in the current version. So now I am not sure what was the comment about :( Request you to clarify this a bit, so that I can take the right resolution.. Thanks and regards, -Pushpasis On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mirja, > > Thanks a lot for the comments. And sorry for not being able to reply > earlier. Please find some comments inline. > > Thanks > -Pushpasis > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Overall comment: This reads rather like an informational rfc; however >> given that rfc7490 is standards track, I guess that's fine. >> >> More specific comments: >> - More abbreviations could be spelled out to make it easier to read. >> > [Pushpasis] I will try to add as many as I can in the next version :) > >> - Not sure what section 3 tells me; but I'm also not an expert. >> > [Pushpasis] Section 3 is about a using the same solution proposed to find > a node-protected R-LFA path by running a forward-SPF on the PQ node(s) to > select parameters of the same paths discovered, so that the computing > router on discovering multiple R-LFA backup paths to a single destination > can run some backup-path-selection policies on the same path parameters > collected (while doing computing F-SPF) to select one or more best suited > R-LFA backup paths for the destination. Hope it explains :) You may also > want to refer to RFC7916 for more explanation. > > - Also section 3: "As already specified in Section 2.3.4 to limit the >> computational >> overhead of the proposed approach, forward SPF computations MUST be >> run on a selected subset from the entire set of PQ-nodes computed in >> the network, with a finite limit on the number of PQ-nodes in the >> subset." >> I guess you don't need the upper case MUST here. >> > [Pushpasis] Actually this was suggested to be exactly a MUST in WG > discussions on the WG mail > >> - Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the >> approach proposed, this >> document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the >> entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit >> on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset." >> Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem >> inaccurate. >> > [Pushpasis] Should I replace 'recommends' with 'specifies' then? > >> - And also section 2.3.4: Could you maybe suggest or discuss an >> appropriate default value? >> > [Pushpasis] I have myself implemented it for Juniper and the default value > as 16. I can specify the same as a suggested default. But I am not sure it > will be raise any concern in the WG or not. If you suggest, I can go ahead > and put this in the next version. > > Thanks once again > -Pushpasis > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
