Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-07

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:58:39 +0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-07
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 19 jan 207
IESG Telechat date: 25 January 2007

Summary:
This is probably ready for PS.  My main points from the LC review have 
been resolved satisfactorily.  There was one point which the authors 
claimed was addressed, but on reflection I am not sure that it is fully 
covered.

Comments:
My remaining comment relates to the transient situation that could occur 
as a result of the (hopefully rare) eventuality noted in the last para 
of s4.4.2, where the node switches from using the new RecoveryPath 
mechanism back to using the old mechanism part way through recovery 
(possibly because of a failure downstream?)  My query related to whether 
the partial state from RecoveryPath messages should be used at all in 
this case.  I was unclear as to whether there could be a conflict 
between the partial state and information received after the switch.  
The authors claim that the clear up at the end of the Recovery Period 
(s4.5.2.3) deals with the problem but I am not quite convinced.  I would 
like to see some justification as to why there is not a problem - I 
presume the occasion where the switch might occur is when a path switch 
was in progress resulting in a downstream node change, maybe?  This is 
an awkward corner case clearly but I think it deserves a sentence (or 
some real explanaion of why it does not result in a conflict).  A 
similar issue applies to s5.2.1.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art