Hi Fabian, Many thanks for the review and the improve proposals. We will update the document accordingly. - Section 1 related comments: Both OK. - Section 3: Yes, "behind" refers to downstream - Section 3: Yes, “reassembles” is misleading here. To be deleted. - Section 5: Yes, your understanding is correct, We will fine tune the sentence.
Also, thanks for the background on your use-case, it is very interesting. Cheers Bala’zs From: Fabian Ihle <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:08 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Detnet] Further Comments on draft-ietf-spring-sr-redundancy-protection Hi all, thanks for working on this topic. Redundancy protection is of high interest to us at the University of Tübingen, where we're currently working on a resilience project that includes a prototype for PREOF. Building on similar mechanisms using SRv6 is something we're actively exploring as well. I think the concept and mechanism are clear in the draft, but the readability could be improved in multiple sections, at least thats where I stumbled when reading the draft. Here are some suggestions: * On the elimination network node, the multiple copies are received, redudant packets eliminated, and deliver only a single copy of the packet that is transmitted. --> "On the elimination network node, the multiple copies are received, redundant packets are eliminated, and only a single copy of the packet is transmitted." (Section 1) * "redundancy protection can facilitate to achieve zero packet loss target" --> "redundancy protection can help achieve a zero packet loss target" (Section 1) * "the redundancy node or other network nodes behind the redundancy node MAY include a reordering function" (Section 3). I guess "behind" refers to downstream here? * "A network element that reassembles and elimantes duplicates to forward a single copy" (Section 3) --> How does it reassemble duplicates? It just drops the redundant copy right? Could just drop the reassemble here. * "Not like the uniqueness of flow identification to one specific flow, sequence number keeps changing to each packet within a flow" --> "Unlike the flow identification, which remains constant for a given flow, the sequence number changes with each packet." (Section 5, I have a hard time parsing that sentence, did I understand that correctly?) Typos in the draft: * redudant --> redundant (Section 1) * refered --> referred (Section 1) * recieving --> receiving (Section 1) * elimantes --> eliminates (Section 2.2) * reuqested --> requested (Section 7) * towrds --> towards (Section 11) * Redundacy --> Redundancy (Section 11) * are introduced --> is introduced (Section 1) Best, Fabian -- Fabian Ihle Universität Tübingen Fachbereich Informatik Lehrstuhl Kommunikationsnetze Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut für Informatik Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen Raum: B303 Telefonnr.: +49 7071 29-70545 E-Mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Internet: uni-tuebingen.de
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
