Subject: [spring] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:11:46 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: 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-spring-resiliency-use-cases/

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

I agree with Ben's point about RFC 2119/8174 requirements keyword usage. For
example, I'm looking at the MUST NOT in

  A first protection strategy consists in excluding any local repair
   but instead use end-to-end path protection where each SPRING path is
   protected by a second disjoint SPRING path.  In this case local
   protection MUST NOT be used.

and wondering why that's normative. I would have guessed that the point was,
"if you use local protection, you're not carrying out the end-to-end path
protection strategy that this section describes", but that isn't an RFC
2119/8174 interoperation keyword thing. What am I missing here?

I agree with Adam's confusion about

   Usually, in a normal routing protocol operations, microloops do not
   last long enough and in general they are noticed during the time it
   takes for the network to converge.

I assumed that this was supposed to say something like

   Usually, in a normal routing protocol operations, microloops do not
   last long enough to be noticed during the time it
   takes for the network to converge.

but the current text isn't clear.

---

From: Peter Psenak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:59:35 +0100

Hi Spencer,

I took the editor role from Stefano.

Please see inline:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases/

tend to agree, changed the last sentence in that paragraph to:

"In this case, the local protection is not used along the path."

>     takes for the network to converge.

agreed, changed the text to the above proposed text.

I will post the new revision once we close on all open items from you 
and other reviewers.

thanks,
Peter

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