[babel] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

After discussion with the IESG and another review of the document, I understand
quite a bit more and would like to withdraw most of the DISCUSS points.

Ultimately, I'd just like a clearer statement that Section 4 is non-normative
and nodes are free to use any method to compute RTT from samples, and cost from
RTT, as that doesn't prevent convergence of the protocols. As with any
Distance-vector protocol, if cost computation is not uniform you will get some
silly results.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Is there any notion of RTT variance, jitter, or other statistical properties
in this framework? ISTM to me that 20 ms RTT + 50 ms variance is a worse link
than 40ms RTT + 2ms variance.