Subject: [Teas] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 04:39:41 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: No Objection

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-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect/

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

Minor comments/questions:

- Please spell out RRO in section 4.2

- Why are the following SHOULDs not MUSTs?
"[...] the Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to the SRLG recording
   restriction and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG
   sub-object(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path
   message."

- Why do you need two (potentially different) policies for the two points
below. Shouldn't a node that provides SRLG information initially, also
always provide updates (as the initial information might otherwise be
wrong and therefore not be able to address the originial intention
anymore - disjoint paths)?
   "o  Whether the node is allowed to participate in SRLG collection.
   o  Whether the node should notify changes to collected SRLG
      information to endpoint nodes as described in section 5.2."

---

From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:34:33 +0000

Mirja,

Thanks for your comments!

> - Please spell out RRO in section 4.2

It was previously done in section 3. It doesn't need doing again, does it?

>    sub-object(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path

Good question. The first one should definitely change for consistency with RFC 5420, and I think the second one should too.

> wrong and therefore not be able to address the originial intention anymore
> - disjoint paths)?

Merging them seems reasonable.

Cheers

Matt

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:32:30 +0200

Hi Matt,

thanks! Sounds good! Missed the first occurrence of RRO; so that’s fine!

Mirja

> Am 16.06.2016 um 00:34 schrieb Matt Hartley (mhartley) <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Mirja,
>