Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <> Thu, 22 February 2018 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9C4128959; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:56:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:, Uma Chunduri <>,,,
Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:56:27 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 02:56:28 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Six authors seems excessive for a 13-page document. See RFC 7322 §4.1.1 for
guidance. If justified, I would expect to see a request for an exception to
the five-author rule in the ballot, or at least in the shepherd's write-up.

I support Deborah's DISCUSS.

I find a minor editorial nit in §7:

>  In general, the SPF delay algorithm is only effective in mitigating
>  micro-loops if it is deployed, with the same parameters, on all
>  routers, in the IGP domain or, at least, all routers in an IGP area/

"...on all routers in the IGP domain..." (remove comma)