Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This document doesn't really define any new on-the-wire protocol. Was publication as a BCP rather than a standards track document considered? The Introduction contains the following text: That means that all non-D neighbors of S on the topology will send to S any traffic destined to D if a neighbor did not, then that neighbor would be loop-free. I can't parse this sentence. Is there supposed to be a sentence break somewhere in there? The introduction starts talking about post-failure events (e.g., "when S converges to the new topology") before mentioning a failure of the S-D link. This makes it very hard to follow. Would suggest mentioning the failure being considered before talking about the ensuing events. Section 4 begins: This document defines a two-step convergence initiated by the router detecting a failure and advertising the topological changes in the IGP. This introduces a delay between the convergence of the local router and the network wide convergence. This reads backwards to me. With this technique, the network converges first, followed by an introduced delay, followed by router convergence. Right? Further on in that section: This benefit comes at the expense of eliminating transient forwarding loops involving the local router. I can't make sense of this. Eliminating transient forwarding loops is a good thing, right? Not an expense? I agree with Alvaro that the lack of a recommended default for ULOOP_DELAY_DOWN_TIMER is an issue, especially as the values configured in the examples seem to change arbitrarily from 1 second to 2 seconds. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
