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
