Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Mon, 11 April 2016 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E02B12EE57; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xp1XX2MAlpmb; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89BD412EE49; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=10419; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460380684; x=1461590284; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oZqfllehZu/kSTYc5Xeipa0FjaQbYZ6SnBFdKO/hM8s=; b=U8ZjeD5QFzOkJ8+oG7EB8BvPO0D5q4VTaRWh5r0yb6AvJAypfgCilQTq 6yvzf4Jh2fnCtxvA/ZE1EEk7tWgLo6JBWls4G+BBr1uncWFHt1zkiEZMd 4nI8eX52Qdj8apgr7kaBBmUcOLDz9lzJLLmn88y2VSaS8SeBqL7JYOU51 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AKAgDvogtX/40NJK1dgmtMU30GtWKEc?= =?us-ascii?q?wENgXKGDQKBKzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEEBAQEELUwQAgEIDgMEAQEoBzIUCQgCBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?NBYgnvjEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVhiGES4R1hSAFh22GGXqEGYRrA?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4LgWeETYhZhh+JBgEeAQFCg2dsiS1+AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.24,462,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="90138616"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Apr 2016 13:18:03 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3BDI3ww023751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:18:03 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:18:02 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:18:02 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Susan Hares <>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review
Thread-Index: AQHRhpOaD5grVTQoNk6ETLHZgErIK5+E7L6A
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:18:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <001f01d18692$54baf1e0$fe30d5a0$> <003201d18692$9835b9a0$c8a12ce0$>
In-Reply-To: <003201d18692$9835b9a0$c8a12ce0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D331199111E101aretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:18:06 -0000



I just posted an update to address your comments.

The last nit from id-nits was wrong, as there are no IP addresses in the document.  The tool got confused with "Section". :-)



On 3/25/16, 8:33 AM, "Susan Hares" <<>> wrote:

Missed one more nit.  Added below.

From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 8:32 AM
To: 'idr@ietf. org'
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review

Daniel, Alvaro, Enke, John:

This is a shepherd's review for draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop.  Apparently, I missed sending the shepherd's report during the first call.

I apologize for the delay, but I was waiting for an update for the add-path-guidelines which failed WG LC.  At this point, that draft will go back in the queue as WG draft, and we will not hold up these valuable drafts.

Sue Hares


Status: ready to go to IESG

Major/Minor comments: None

Editorial comments: Nits

Old /In this document we present/
New/ This document presents/

[why:  Not standard language. ]

Section 5.1 and section 5.2 would be clearer to the average reader if you would:

Replace in section 5.1
Old /2 or 3 in the ADD-PATH /
New/ 2 (send multiple paths)  or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) in the ADD-PATH/

Old /1 or 3 for the same/
New /1 (receive multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths for the same/

Replace in section 5.2
 Old /2 or 3 in the ADD-PATH /
New/ 2 (send multiple paths)  or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) in the ADD-PATH/

Old /1 or 3 for the same/
New /1 (receive multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths for the same/

NITS claim:
There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
Please fix.