Hi Yingzhen/All, I realize that I've not responded to this email while discussing the draft on other threads.
We are now at v19 of the draft and see some open suggestions from Bruno on a couple of threads that are helpful and IMHO should be incorporated. All these updates are clarifying the post-convergence aspects. To me all of these are clarifications. The benefits of the use of post-convergence path and the ability with SR to provide a backup in any topology (practically true for most deployments though theoretically can fail due to MSD limitations in some corner cases) have been the key value propositions for TI-LFA. This technology is widely implemented and deployed in the networks and I hope the WG can progress this document soonish. I also do not understand the motivation for changing from standards track to informational at this stage given that other LFA specifications have been standards track. Thanks, Ketan On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 4:01 PM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Since the draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa version 13 was submitted > to the IESG for publication in Feb this year, it has gone through several > iterations to address review comments. > > We'd like to bring the WG's attention that it is no longer a mandatory > requirement to follow the post-convergence path. The section 11 in version > 13 (Advantages of using the expected post-convergence path during FRR) is > now in Appendix A. Ahmed mentioned during his presentation at IETF121 that > this change was due to hardware limitations (recording: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qVpJsG9nO4), but this is not included in > the draft. Whether it is important to follow the post-convergence path is > not clearly stated in the draft, or under what circumstances the > post-convergence path is recommended and should be followed. > > We'd like to get the WG's opinion about the change. Please note that > currently the draft is Standards Track. Whether it should be kept as > Standards Track or moved to Informational should also be considered. > > Please review the latest version of the document and send your comments to > the list before December 14th, especially if you're not in agreement with > this change or you think it should be moved to Informational. > > Thanks, > Jeff and Yingzhen (RTGWG co-chairs) > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
