• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
• Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
• Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
• Awaiting Merge with Other Document
• Author or Editor Needed
• Waiting for Referenced Document
• Waiting for Referencing Document
• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
• Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
• Other - see Comment Log

## IETF :: grow

### Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

(System)

RFC published

(System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress

Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

(System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from None

Cindy Morgan

IESG has approved the document

Cindy Morgan

Closed "Approve" ballot

Cindy Morgan

Ballot approval text was generated

Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

Ron Bonica

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed

Ron Bonica

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

[Ballot comment]

In re-reading to check that my Discuss had been addressed I noted one further point (or rather an elaboration of a previous point). I am raising thise as a Comment rather than perpetuating my Discuss.

- - - -

I'm sorry to get hung up on the word "best" again. I am still having
trouble deciding whether "N best paths" means that there are N paths
of equivalent bestness, or whether there are N paths where some are
better than others.

E.g., In the set {9, 9, 8, 7, 6} could you set N=3 and select (9, 9, 8)
as the N highest numbers? Or would the set force you set N= 2 and only
select (9, 9) as the N highest numbers?

This distinction may be why I was getting confused about ordering. If
you are considering that all N paths are "equally best" then a lot of
my concern goes away, but it would be really helpful to make this
clarification in the text. That clarification would be something like:

In the context of this document we consider N paths to all be best
paths if they are for all purposes equally selectable as the best
path by a BGP implementation.

If, however, you are allowing "N paths where some are better than
others" then I see two subcategories:

1. The degree of bestness is sufficiently close that it would not
matter if any one of the paths was selected. This case collapses
into the previous pont, but the text needs to be ammended to
explain the selection process.

2. There is a significant distinction between members of the set of N
paths such that were the best of the best to fail, the next best
choice would be a limited choice from the full set of N. In this
case there would appear to be a need to distinguish those that are
"less best" in order to make an ordered choice.

Since stability and convergence are given as 2 of the 3 motivating
factors, if this final option (not all the best are equal) applies,
then there are two issues to address:
- definition of "best" for the sake of being advertised as one of the N
- ordering among the N

to know which next path to select if the best-best path fails. If it
should select from plane-2, then we need to know how to populate the
planes. If it should select from across all planes, then we need to
know how to distinguish the offered paths.

Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]

In rereading to check that my Discuss had been addressed I noted some further points. I am raising these as Comments rather than perpetuating my Discuss.

--- I will enter them into the Tracker shortly

Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

(System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

Robert Raszuk

New version available: draft-ietf-grow-diverse-bgp-path-dist-08.txt

Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.