Eric, I added more text to introduction section . Pls check if it helps improve readability.
“Many OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 deployments run on overlay networks provisioned by means of pseudo-wires or L2-circuits. Prior to devices in the underlying network going offline for maintenance, it is useful to divert the traffic away from the node before the maintenance is actually performed. Since the nodes in the underlying network are not visible to OSPF, the existing stub router mechanism described in [RFC6987] cannot be used. In a service provider's network, there may be many CE-to-CE connections that run over a single PE. It is cumbersome to change the metric on every CE-to-CE connection in both directions. This document provides a mechanism to change metric in other direction of the link and also use the link as a last-resort-link if no alternate paths are available. An application specific to this use case is described in detail in Section 7.1.” rgds Shraddha From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 12:09 AM To: Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-ospf-link-overl...@ietf.org; ospf-cha...@ietf.org; a...@cisco.com; ospf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12: (with COMMENT) On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Eric, Introduction section does have a brief description and refers to 7.1 for detailed description of the use case. Moving detailed use case description to introduction section will make it cluttered. Also there are other applications apart from 7.1 which also have a brief description in the Introduction and refer to application section for detailed description. Well, it's a comment, so you're free to ignore it, but as a consume of this document, I found the current structure hard to follow. -Ekr Rgds Shraddha -----Original Message----- From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com<mailto:e...@rtfm.com>] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 10:11 PM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overl...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ospf-link-overl...@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>; ospf-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:ospf-cha...@ietf.org>; a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>; ospf@ietf.org<mailto:ospf@ietf.org> Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12: (with COMMENT) Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-12: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=3MyT2IBHmmEmtejJI2o73p3zIjhzSmGtffDprR-DdD0&s=TufjwL4DRLGVAWd56qU-6DaDDRfPsgeHp8JmN2XrdTE&e= for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dospf-2Dlink-2Doverload_&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=3MyT2IBHmmEmtejJI2o73p3zIjhzSmGtffDprR-DdD0&s=avFGB5zEal090OxCbLLU5A1NvjlOJREQPCY-yP7GTDk&e= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this document would be clearer if the example in S 7.1 were in the intro. I was scratching my head a bit at the beginning and then got to 7.1 and it made more sense.
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
