Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-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-uloop-delay/



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

Section 1.  Introduction:
"That means that all non-D neighbors of S on the
   topology will send to S any traffic destined to D if a neighbor did
   not, then that neighbor would be loop-free."
 -- I was unable to parse the above. I may just be overtired, but it feels like
 there are some missing words.

Nits:
" When S-D fails, a transient forwarding loop may appear between S and
   B if S updates its forwarding entry to D before B."
 -- Perhaps "... entry to D before B does." or "... before B updates its
 forwarding entry"?

Section 2.1.  Fast reroute inefficiency
"On the  router C, the nexthop to D is the tunnel T thanks to the IGP 
shortcut." s/the//

"On C, the tail-end of the TE tunnel (router B) is no more on the shortest-path
tree (SPT) to D, ..." s/is no more on/is no longer on/ (related) "... so C does
not encapsulate anymore the traffic to D..." s/does not encapsulate anymore/no
longer encapsulates/

Section 3.  Overview of the solution
"This ordered convergence, is similar to the ordered FIB ..."
s/,/ (superfluous).