Hi Deborah, 

Given that the goal of RFC 6976 was much more ambitious and the mechanisms are 
much more complex, I don't think this draft should be put in the same category. 

What we have done is precisely specify a standard algorithm for IGP SPF 
back-off. When deployed, this standard algorithm will greatly improve (but not 
eliminate) micro-loops in IGP routing domains currently utilizing disparate SPF 
back-off algorithms. The problem statement draft best articulates the impact of 
differing SPF back-off algorithms: 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-06.txt. 
Finally, there have been several prototype implementations validating the 
algorithm specification's completeness and clarity. 

Thanks,
Acee

    Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: Discuss
    
    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-backoff-algo/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    While I agree with Alvaro's concerns, my concern is the appropriateness of 
this document as PS.
    This document should have a similar status as RFC6976 (Informational) which 
also provided a
    mechanism that prevented transient loops saying "the mechanisms described 
in this
    document are purely illustrative of the general approach and do not 
constitute a protocol
    specification". Especially as this document compares itself to RFC6976, 
saying RFC6976 is a
    "full solution".
    
    With a change of status to Informational, this document would be better
    scoped as providing guidance vs. a specification.
    
    
    
    
    

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to