Warren Kumari 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1. Introduction: "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 was unable to parse the above. I may just be overtired, but it feels like there are some missing words. Nits: " When S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and B if S updates its forwarding entry to D before B." -- Perhaps "... entry to D before B does." or "... before B updates its forwarding entry"? Section 2.1. Fast reroute inefficiency "On the router C, the nexthop to D is the tunnel T thanks to the IGP shortcut." s/the// "On C, the tail-end of the TE tunnel (router B) is no more on the shortest-path tree (SPT) to D, ..." s/is no more on/is no longer on/ (related) "... so C does not encapsulate anymore the traffic to D..." s/does not encapsulate anymore/no longer encapsulates/ Section 3. Overview of the solution "This ordered convergence, is similar to the ordered FIB ..." s/,/ (superfluous). _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
