Hi Ketan and all, Thanks for the feedback.
As an individual contributor, I agree that the draft should progress on standards track. My question to the authors. When ti-lfa is enabled, if post-convergence path is feasible (no MSD limitation and other policy restrictions), it SHOULD be preferred. Is this correct? Thanks, Yingzhen On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:18 AM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
