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

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Adam,

In this case, I was approached a couple of years about it - and confirmed
about the direct and key participation of each of them.  This is not a
trivial
document and there are multiple interoperable implementations that
contributed
to its success.

I, obviously, disagree about this document being Informational.  It is
defining
necessary behavior to reduce packet loss - particularly crucial with IP/LDP
fast-reroute being more prevalent.  Of course, that's a discussion to have
with Deborah.

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:56 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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)
>
>
>