Shortest Path First (SPF) Back-Off Delay Algorithm for Link-State IGPs
draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-10
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
Warren Kumari
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -07)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2018-02-21 for -07)
Unknown
I really like that you've produced this document. It was clear to someone with a minimal routing background. Thanks for that, too. I would support either Alvaro's Discuss or Deborah's Discuss, and maybe both. - I think the document would still be useful if it was Informational, as an example of the kind of thing that could be done. - If you really want stuff in the same network, or the same level/area, to use the same timers, putting safe-ish default values in the document would be more likely to make that happen. I did notice one piece of text that wasn't clear to me. I found this confusing - In general, when the network is stable, there is a desire to compute a new Shortest Path First (SPF) as soon as a failure is detected in order to quickly route around the failure. However, when the network is experiencing multiple temporally close failures over a short period of time, there is a conflicting desire to limit the frequency of SPF computations. Indeed, this allows a reduction in control plane resources used by IGPs and all protocols/subsystems reacting on the attendant route change, such as ... "this allows" seemed as likely to refer to the desire to limit, as anything else. Perhaps ... limit the frequency of SPF computations, which would allow a reduction in control plane resources used by IGPs and all protocols/subsystems reacting on the attendant route change, such as ... might be clearer.
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-21 for -07)
Unknown
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)
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-19)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-13 for -09)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my comments.
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-20 for -07)
Unknown
I see other people have noted Ben's secdir review. That deserves addressing.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-21 for -07)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing Ben's SecDir review. It appears that the changes are queued up and it would be appreciated to ensure they are in the approved version. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/x9QCq2kZTmcP0_ZFeZrv_rs5Mmw
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-19 for -07)
Unknown
1) Probably an editorial issue: "... SPF_DELAY to be restored to INITIAL_SPF_DELAY. e.g., 3 seconds." 3 seconds? The previous text says INITIAL_SPF_DELAY should be very short, e.g. 0 milliseconds...? 2) Also editorial: it would be helpful to show the state diagram right at the beginning.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-21 for -07)
Unknown
Agree with Alvaro's DISCUSS regarding specifying reasonable defaults.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-02-21 for -07)
Unknown
I think Alvaro and Deborah have covered the situation well.