RE: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your review, I will publish a revision soon addressing your comment.
The RFC type (BGP vs info vs STD) has been discussed in the WG, and we are following the way of LFA,rLFA... that are standard track RFCs. Please see the email attached.

Brgds,

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 06:13
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Oops, sorry, I entered the bit about addressing my comments for the wrong
draft.)

- General: Do I undertand correctly that this is a black-box implementation detail? I note that section 4 explicitly says that it is a local-only feature that does not require interoperability. If so, then standards track seems inappropriate. BCP or informational seems to make more sense. Since there are recommendations here, I think BCP is the right choice.  (I note Adam made a similar comment.)

-11: Do you expect this section to stay in the RFC? It is likely to become outdated rather quickly.

Editorial Comments:

- General: Please number the tables.

- sections 2 and 3 and their child sections have quite a few grammar errors.
Please proofread it again. I mention a few specifics below, but doubt I caught everything.

- 2, first paragraph: " 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 can't parse that sentence. Is it a run-on sentence, or are there missing words? -- S / "can be work" / "can work"

-3: " may cause high damages for a network."
I suggest " may cause significant network damage".

-4, last paragraph: "This benefit comes at the expense of eliminating transient forwarding loops involving the local router. " How is that an "expense"? Isn't it the whole point?

-5.3, first paragraph and paragraph before figure 4:
The MUST is stated twice. Please avoid redundant normative statements. Even if they agree now, they can cause maintenance issues down the road.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

RE: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)

Attachment: ATT00001.txt