Subject: WG docs reminder

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:57:28 -0500

As a reminder, three documents were proposed as WG documents at our 
IETF-67 meeting:

draft-bryant-shand-lf-conv-frmwk-03.txt
draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-03.txt
draft-francois-ordered-fib-02.txt

Rough consensus at the in-person meeting favored adoption.  The 
deadline for comments to the list is November 21 (this coming 
Tuesday).

--John

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:46:34 -0800

Strong yes to all three. For someone like me, who spends most of his 
time switching the layers below IP (e.g., optical), the two loop-free 
drafts are particularly important. 

Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networks

John G. Scudder wrote:
> deadline for comments to the list is November 21 (this coming Tuesday).
>
> --John
>

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:40:08 -0500

In favor for the 3 IDs.

JP.

---

From: "Don Fedyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:50:15 -0500

Hi John

I've started reviewing this. Are these documents intended as Standard or
Informational? 
The Loop free documents is informational from my reading of the minutes.

Thanks,
Don  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 
> Rough consensus at the in-person meeting favored adoption.  
> The deadline for comments to the list is November 21 (this 
> coming Tuesday).
> 
> --John
>

---

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:07:31 +0000

>The Loop free documents is informational from my reading of the minutes.

oFIB and not-via are intended to be Standard. Informational doesn't 
make much sense.

I don't know about the loop-free framework document.  I assume 
framework documents are usually informational.

         Mike

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:46:09 -0500

>framework documents are usually informational.

Yep, informational.

--John

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:20:30 +0100

Dear John,

We support these drafts.

Here are some comments on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-03.txt.

4.4 5.a.i: Does Fig. 3 refer to this case? In Fig. 3 P is NOT a next hop 
of Y. I can imagine what this passage want, but it is hard to understand.

Regarding the iSPF calculation in 3):
We studied the time savings achievable by incremental Shortest Path
First algorithms in the context of resource management with resilience.
Experimental results showed that the computation time can be reduced
by up to 90% compared to full SPF computations when we also recomputed
the new load distribution.
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/Menth06r.pdf

Typos:
* 1. last sentence "in not" -> "is not"
* 10. "process the chose encapsulation" -> "process the chosen 
encapsulation"
* 14. "If an attacker were" -> "If an attacker was"

Best wishes,

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:45:53 +0000

At 07:20 20/11/2006, Michael Menth wrote:
>4.4 5.a.i: Does Fig. 3 refer to this case? In Fig. 3 P is NOT a next 
>hop of Y. I can imagine what this passage want, but it is hard to understand.

Yes it does refer to figure 3. I agree it is slightly confusing.

By "Y, a node whose next hop is P"

we mean that S's next hop towards Y is P

and conversely that S's next hop towards Z is not P

We will try to clarify that in the next version

>http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/Menth06r.pdf

Interesting paper. I'll read it in depth later.

There are a number of furhter optimizations which can be applied to 
the not-via iSPF computation.

Have you thought about the effect of the use of the "early 
termination" once the not-via addresses have been re-attached.

>* 10. "process the chose encapsulation" -> "process the chosen encapsulation"

Thanks for the first two

actually the use of "were" (the subjunctive) is better English than 
"was" in this context.

---

From: "Don Fedyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:04:32 -0500

Hi John

I vote yes these should be WG documents

Regards,
Don

---

From: "Mick Seaman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:55:34 -0800

I favour adoption of 

that is not to say I am at all opposed to the other two documents, I just haven't studied them in sufficient detail to render an opinion.

Mick

-----