Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-09
Requested revision 09 (document currently at 15)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-04-14
Requested 2023-03-20
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Ahmed Bashandy , Stephane Litkowski , Clarence Filsfils , Pierre Francois , Bruno Decraene , Daniel Voyer
I-D last updated 2023-06-25
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -12 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Wes Hardaker (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -11 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Early review of -10 by Wes Hardaker (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Andy Smith (diff)
Intdir Early review of -11 by Antoine Fressancourt (diff)
The RTGWG chairs would like to request some early directorate reviews to prepare the draft for WGLC, which will start after IETF 116.
Assignment Reviewer Andy Smith
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-06-25

Thank you for writing this document.

This document is well written. I think that it is ready to be published,
but there are a few points below that I would like to discuss for
clarification. I also spotted a few nits that should be fixed at some point
before publication.

Comments and Questions:

I would like to see some more detailed examples of capacity planning in
TI-LFA environments.   The document touches on this to some degree, but a
few illustrations showing how to accommodate some topological scenarios -
'valley free' routing, dissimilar interface speeds, cases where ECMP isn't
always feasible, etc would be helpful.   Some topological case studies and
the effect TI-LFA has on the network would be helpful to the operator when
designing the network.


 - Avoid gratuitous promotional language (weasel words) like "Thanks to SR"
--> not necessary

 - "it looks interesting to steer the traffic onto the post-convergence
path" --> poor english

 - "w.r.t." --> this is used throughout the document, expand it to 'with
regard to' or rework the sentence

 - "used by the repair path is recored" --> spelling error

 - Rework this sentence:

   "1 SID repair paths are sufficient to protect more than 99% of the
prefix in almost all cases"

   should read:

   "1 SID repair path is sufficient to protect more than 99% of the
prefixes in almost all cases"

 - "only 1 SID is needed to guarantee loop-freeness" --> Awkward use, is
'freeness' a word?