[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi Ahmed, Thanks for the update. I read the diff, and I listened to the recording of your rtgwg presentation. I've written a long message. For convenience, the bottom line (TL;DR as it were) is that I think the conversation that was started with Stewart and Sasha at the mic line at IETF-121 ne

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Speaking as WG member, I agree with John's comments and what Stewart and Sasha said at the mic, the removal of the requirement to follow post-convergence path is a big change. If it's not mandatory anymore, we need to document under what situation, post-convergence path is recommended and why? and

[rtgwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Ahmed, and all, 1. From my POV the changes made in the -18 revision of the draft resolve inconsistency between the Abstract and the body of the draft. 2. I have a question about usage of protected and unprotected Adj-SIDs in TI-LFA: * In Section 10