Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

Deborah Brungard <> Tue, 20 February 2018 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BEC126DFF; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:02:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Deborah Brungard <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:, Uma Chunduri <>,,,
Subject: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:02:59 -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: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 23:03:00 -0000

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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


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.