Hi all, I would like to clarify the position (in the case it was misunderstood or misinterpreted) on usage of the post-convergence oath in the TI-LFA draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-17> that I have presented during the WG session today.
I fully agree with Stewart: Calling congruence of the TI-LFA repair path with the post-convergence path of the PLR "a key aspect of TI-LFA" in the Abstract while saying (in the Introduction) that "Although not a TI-LFA requirement or constraint, TI-LFA also brings the benefit of the ability to provide a backup path that follows the expected post-convergence path" creates unnecessary confusion, especially for the readers that have not been tracking this draft and its predecessors for the lats 9 years. IMHO and FWIW the simplest way to eliminate this confusion would be by replacing the problematic sentence in the Abstract with the quoted text in Introduction. Of course, the authors may prefer some other way for addressing this issue. My 2c, Sasha Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
