Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

["Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10: 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-rlfa-node-protection/



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

Overall comment: This reads rather like an informational rfc; however
given that rfc7490 is standards track, I guess that's fine.

More specific comments:
- More abbreviations could be spelled out to make it easier to read.
- Not sure what section 3 tells me; but I'm also not an expert. 
- Also section 3: "As already specified in Section 2.3.4 to limit the
computational
   overhead of the proposed approach, forward SPF computations MUST be
   run on a selected subset from the entire set of PQ-nodes computed in
   the network, with a finite limit on the number of PQ-nodes in the
   subset."
   I guess you don't need the upper case MUST here.
- Also then in section 2.3.4: "To limit the computational overhead of the
approach proposed, this
   document proposes that implementations MUST choose a subset from the
   entire set of PQ-nodes computed in the network, with a finite limit
   on the number of PQ-nodes in the subset."
   Saying "this doc recommends" and "MUST" in the same sentence seem
inaccurate.
- And also section 2.3.4: Could you maybe suggest or discuss an
appropriate default value?