Hi Adam,
I took the editor role from Stefano.
Please see inline:
On 13/12/17 18:35 , Adam Roach wrote:
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11: 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-spring-resiliency-use-cases/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I *think* I found a minor issue. Section 5 contains the following text:
Usually, in a normal routing protocol operations, microloops do not
last long enough and in general they are noticed during the time it
takes for the network to converge.
I'm assuming this is intended to say "...are not noticed..."?
not really. Microloops are noticed during the convergence time.
I've added the "only" to the sentence, so it reads as follows:
"Usually, in a normal routing protocol operations, microloops do not
last long enough and in general they are only noticed during the time it
takes for the network to converge."
Hope it addresses your comment and makes the text clearer.
I will post the new revision once we close on all open items from you
and other reviewers.
thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
