This is what I suggested during the presentation yesterday: to replace
the word "key" in the abstract
If that small edit would clear the confusion, I will go ahead and do it
Thanks
Ahmed
On 11/5/24 7:52 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
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
