Hi Mirja, Thanks for your comments once again.. Please find some more answers inline
-Pushpasis On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pushpasis, > > thank for your replies. Please see below! > > Mirja > > On 18.01.2017 03:42, Pushpasis Sarkar 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] >> <mailto:[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/stat >> ement/discuss-criteria.html >> <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/ >> <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. >> > > Still not clear to me. Anyway I'm not an expert and maybe I'm missing > something. Or let me ask the questions differently: What does this part add > to the rest of the doc and why is this a separate section? [Pushpasis] The solution proposed to solve the first problem in section 2 (i.e. ensuring node-protection with R-LFA) can also be extended to solve another problem (i.e. collecting parameters used by backup-selection-algorithm RFC7916 wrt to R-LFA backup paths (this is more detailed in section 6.2.5.4 of RFC7916). Since the same solution in a extended form also solved a separate but related problem, this was curved out as separate section. In summary this document proposes to two separate but related problems and hence two different sections.. Hope I could answer this satisfactorily this time.. :) > > >> - 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 >> > > My point was, given this is a MUST in section 2.3.4 and this sentence > starts with "As already specified in Section 2.3.4" it does have to be an > upper case MUST here again (because it's correctly normatively specified in > section 2.3.4). However not a big issue. [Pushpasis] Got it. Will do so.. > > > >> - 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. >> > > If you think this could raise any concerns in the wg, you should go back > to the wg mailing list and ask for feedback/confirmation. > [Pushpasis] I dont think it will raise a concern. Just wanted to avoid unwarranted discussion.. :) Anyways I will provide some text in the next version and ask WG to let know any comments or opinion. Thanks and Regards, -Pushpasis > > > > >> Thanks once again >> -Pushpasis >> >>
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
