Hi Ben,
Thanks for your review, I will publish a revision soon addressing your comment.
The RFC type (BGP vs info vs STD) has been discussed in the WG, and we are
following the way of LFA,rLFA... that are standard track RFCs. Please see the
email attached.
Brgds,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 06:13
To: The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with
COMMENT)
Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Oops, sorry, I entered the bit about addressing my comments for the wrong
draft.)
- General: Do I undertand correctly that this is a black-box implementation
detail? I note that section 4 explicitly says that it is a local-only feature
that does not require interoperability. If so, then standards track seems
inappropriate. BCP or informational seems to make more sense. Since there are
recommendations here, I think BCP is the right choice. (I note Adam made a
similar comment.)
-11: Do you expect this section to stay in the RFC? It is likely to become
outdated rather quickly.
Editorial Comments:
- General: Please number the tables.
- sections 2 and 3 and their child sections have quite a few grammar errors.
Please proofread it again. I mention a few specifics below, but doubt I caught
everything.
- 2, first paragraph: " 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 that sentence. Is it a run-on
sentence, or are there missing words? -- S / "can be work" / "can work"
-3: " may cause high damages for a network."
I suggest " may cause significant network damage".
-4, last paragraph: "This benefit comes at the expense of eliminating transient
forwarding loops involving the local router. " How is that an "expense"? Isn't
it the whole point?
-5.3, first paragraph and paragraph before figure 4:
The MUST is stated twice. Please avoid redundant normative statements. Even if
they agree now, they can cause maintenance issues down the road.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--- Begin Message ---
I will accept whatever the consensus is.
- Stewart
On 05/06/2017 16:22, Chris Bowers wrote:
Stewart,
It seems to me that this document is not qualitatively different from the
LFA, RLFA, and
node-protecting LFA RFCs which were all published as standards track. The
behavior of the PLR
in those documents is also a local matter, and in principle can be deployed
on a single router without
the knowledge of the rest of the network (except for allowing establishment
of targeted LDP
sessions in the case of remote LFA).
Publishing this draft as standards track seems to be consistent with the
decision made on those drafts.
Chris
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 4:48 AM
To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Acee
Lindem (acee) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; RTGWG
<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
Hi Chris
An RFC is surely sufficient to specify the behaviour of the router, and
communicate to others the capability of a product.
If multiple routers needed to act identically across the network I could see
ST as better, but this is really a single router feature.
- Stewart
On 04/06/2017 17:47, Chris Bowers wrote:
As a WG participant, I think standards track makes most sense, since it
specifies a precise behavior for a router under certain conditions. It is
likely that network operators and software implementers will want to use the
document as a means of communicating about whether or not a given
implementation supports that precise behavior. In my opinion, a standards
track document is the best format to support that interaction.
Chris
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 6:05 PM
To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; RTGWG
<[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
I support advancement and publication of this draft. I think we should
have the discussion of whether or not it should be standards track, BCP, or
informational as invariably this question will arise during all the reviews.
Thanks,
Acee
From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on
behalf of Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM
To: Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
RTGWG,
This email starts the two week WG last call for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay/
Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this
standards track document, along with the reasoning for that support or
opposition.
IPR:
If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond
to
this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
The
response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from
each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
The document currently has the following IPR disclosure associated
with it.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2565/
This last call will end on Friday June 16th.
Thanks,
Chris and Jeff
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
