Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:48:24 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
        Authors         : Pushpasis Sarkar
                          Shraddha Hegde
                          Chris Bowers
                          Hannes Gredler
                          Stephane Litkowski
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2015-10-06

Abstract:
   The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
   [RFC7490] specification guarantees only link-protection.  The
   resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not
   guarantee node-protection for all destinations being protected by it.

   This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node
   provides node-protection for a specific destination or not.  The
   document also shows how the same procedure can be utilised for
   collection of complete characteristics for alternate paths.
   Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is
   precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not
   fitting constraints.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:52:49 +0000

Hi Mike,

I have uploaded version 03 addressing all your comments. Please review and let me know if there any more comments.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis

On 10/6/15, 9:18 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of [email-masked]" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Mike Shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:09:29 +0100

Pushpasis,

That looks fine. Just a few trivial comments that don't seem to have 
been addressed.

I'll be interested to see how this progresses.

para under figure 2 line 3

I still think it should say Extended P-space of S and Q-space of E 
(w.r.t. S-E link).

i.e. make it clear that it is the extended P-space OF S  that we are 
talking about.

introduction para 1 line 2

I still think guarantee is better than guarantees here.

par 4 line 2

"procedure is extended"

2. Node protection with remote-LFA
para 1 line 7

a essential -> essential

2.3. computing node-protecting R-LFA path
para 2
it's ->its

and another one that seems to have crept in

2.3.3 Limiting extra...
para 3 line 4

it's->its

That's all

Mike