Subject: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:57:27 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document mentions manageability in his title. Hence my special
focus.
I'm with Eric Vyncke here. His OPS DIR review is:

Not being an expert in LFA, the review focus was only on operation.
And, due to the density and specialization of the I-D, I would like to
ask the authors whether they read RFC 5706 about 'ops and mgmt
guidelines', i.e., to check whether this I-D considered migration from an
existing LFA to the new one, interoperations with previous LFA and how
correct operations can be verified.
As the core topic is about loop-free alternates, we can assume that fault
management and operations are at the core of this I-D. But, I encourage
the authors to quickly review their document with RFC 5706 in mind.

After reading the document (and with basic knowledge of RLFA), I'm unable
to tell at this point if RFC 7916 is still valid for this new
functionality, if it needs to be updated, or even if
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10#section-3
is complete in light of RFC 5706. I'll be watching the discussion with
interest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-  The resulting Remote-LFA
   alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-nodes) may not
provide
   node-protection for all destinations covered by the same, in case of
   failure of the primary nexthop node.

Covered by the same?

- There are also some nits and typos such as " uitilized" in the
abstract.

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:35:11 +0530

Hi Benoit,

Many many thanks for your review comments. Please find answers inline...

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [Pushpasis]
I have provided an elaborate explanation in reply to OPS DIR review
comments from Eric. Request you to please refer to that.. :) And please let
us know if we are missing anything specific here..

[Pushpasis] The reference here is to the PQ-node computed using RFC7490
specification which only gaurantees protection against failure of first-hop
link and not against failure of first-hop node(or router)..
I will try to change the text to clarify this..

> - There are also some nits and typos such as " uitilized" in the
[Pushpasis] I will take care of this in a next version shortly.

Thanks once again and Regards,
-Pushpasis

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 09:40:23 +0100

On 1/19/2017 12:05 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Please refer to
>     https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>     <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/>
>
>
>
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10#section-3>
> comments from Eric. Request you to please refer to that.. :) And 
> please let us know if we are missing anything specific here..
>
>
my point is: aren't you missing a word after "by the same"?

Regards, B.
> [Pushpasis] The reference here is to the PQ-node computed using 
> RFC7490 specification which only gaurantees protection against failure 
> of first-hop link and not against failure of first-hop node(or router)..

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:59:56 +0530

Hi Benoit,

Sure. I will add this clarification too in the next version.

Thanks
-Pushpasis