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

Ben Campbell <> Thu, 12 October 2017 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD4E134453; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-07: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.63.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 21:13:04 -0700
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: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 04:13:05 -0000

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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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


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

- 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outdated rather quickly.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

- 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.