Adam, In this case, I was approached a couple of years about it - and confirmed about the direct and key participation of each of them. This is not a trivial document and there are multiple interoperable implementations that contributed to its success.
I, obviously, disagree about this document being Informational. It is defining necessary behavior to reduce packet loss - particularly crucial with IP/LDP fast-reroute being more prevalent. Of course, that's a discussion to have with Deborah. Regards, Alia On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote: > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-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-backoff-algo/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Six authors seems excessive for a 13-page document. See RFC 7322 §4.1.1 for > guidance. If justified, I would expect to see a request for an exception to > the five-author rule in the ballot, or at least in the shepherd's write-up. > > I support Deborah's DISCUSS. > > I find a minor editorial nit in §7: > > > In general, the SPF delay algorithm is only effective in mitigating > > micro-loops if it is deployed, with the same parameters, on all > > routers, in the IGP domain or, at least, all routers in an IGP area/ > > "...on all routers in the IGP domain..." (remove comma) > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
