Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-13

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2017-01-16 for -10)
No email
send info
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?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Record

Comment (2017-01-19 for -10)
No email
send info
awaiting clearance of the ops review