Subject: [Teas] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 22:42:59 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: 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-lsp-diversity/

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

The Abstract should stand on its own; and, as such, needs to expand the "XRO"
and "EXRS" acronyms (similar to the Introduction).

For completeness, the definition of the "E" flag in section 2.1 probably needs
to indicate that bit 0x08 is reserved, and MUST be set to 0 send, ignored on
receipt.

In section 3.2, on page 19, concerning the following text:

      If, subsequent to the initial signaling of a diverse LSP, the
      requested exclusion constraints for the diverse LSP are no longer
      satisfied and an alternative path for the diverse LSP that can
      satisfy those constraints exists, then:

The phrasing "no longer satisfied" seems a bit incomplete, as (by my
understanding) the constraints might not have been satisfied in the first
place, if the L-bit was set in the initial request. I presume that, if this
were to happen, you'd want to signal when a compliant path became available --
but the current text doesn't indicate that this is okay. Perhaps something
like: "...are no longer satisfied (or, in the case that the initial request
triggered a "Failed to satisfy Exclude Route" error subcode, remain
unsatisfied), and an alternative path for..."