Hi Pushpasis, Sure - a separate section is fine. A detailed example would be useful for those who don't have years of thinking through the different cases yet.
Thanks, Alia On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi Alia, > > Many many thanks for the comments. > > Regarding your comment on an example with multiple ecmp primary next-hop > nodes, is it okay if we include it as a separate section? I do have an > example in mind, but am not sure including it directly in the problem > statement will complicate it for the readers to understand it, or not. > > I will wait for your suggestion on the above. :) > > Thanks and regards, > -Pushpasis > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As is customary, I have done my AD review of >> draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-08. First, I would like to thank >> the authors - Pushpasis, Shraddha, Chris, Hannes, and Stephane - for their >> work on this well-written document. >> >> I do not have any substantial comments from my review, so I am happy to >> request an IETF Last Call on this and have scheduled it for the Jan 19 IESG >> telechat. >> >> My one comment is that it would be useful to have a slightly larger clear >> example where the primary path has multiple ECMP next-hop nodes. This can >> be a point of complexity and is not really described clearly as such. >> >> Thanks, >> Alia >> > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
