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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:56:27 -0800

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)

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:05:53 -0500

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