Eric Rescorla 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Line 115 Consider the case in Figure 1 where S does not have an LFA to protect its traffic to D. That means that all non-D neighbors of S on the You need to define LFA. Line 118 topology will send to S any traffic destined to D if a neighbor did not, then that neighbor would be loop-free. Regardless of the advanced fast-reroute (FRR) technique used, when S converges to the This is not a grammatical sentence. Line 132 S ------ B 1 Figure 1 What do the numbers in this box mean? I assume they are route metrics, but you need to say so. Line 136 When S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and B if S updates its forwarding entry to D before B. Something seems to have gone badly wrong with this paragraph. Are these lines supposed to be in the previous paragraph. Line 326 unstable. As an example, [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo] defines a standard SPF delay algorithm. You need to define SPF here. Line 338 1. The Up/Down event is notified to the IGP. Usually, one would say that the IGP is notified of... Line 552 S Figure 7 Is this the same as the previous figure with T running CEAB? _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
