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

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:51:57 -0700

Warren Kumari 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Adam's position. I also think that Ignas Bagdonas' OpsDir review (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08-opsdir-lc-bagdonas-2017-08-30/
) needs careful consideration / addressing. I almost balloted DISCUSS from
them, but trust that they will be addressed.

I did find much of the document well written and an easy read. The diagrams
were also (surprisingly) clear.

I have some nits / comments, mainly around the abstract.
1:   "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"  -
s/ReserVation/ReSerVation/ (otherwise the (R)RSVP would be (R)RVP)

2: " Three different mechanisms are supported how LSP diversity can be
accomplished in the provider or core network: ..." - this doesn't really parse.
Perhaps " Three different mechanisms providing LSP diversity in the provider or
core network are supported:..." ? Not great, but ...

3: "The solution described in this document is based on the assumption that
LSPs are requested sequentially, i.e., the time period between the LSP setup
requests for the two LSPs may be longer (days, weeks, months)." -- may be
longer than what? Perhaps "may be relatively long" or "may be on the order of
days / weeks / months"?

4" "Re-routing the first LSP that may have existed for a longer period of time
is not considered." - again, longer than what? Longer than the second (/ Ntn)?
Longer than months?

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:07:53 +0200

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity/
Exactly my thoughts as well, mentioned to Deborah yesterday.

Regards, Benoit
> .