Avoid BGP Best Path Transitions from One External to Another
RFC 5004

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2007-03-08 for -)
No email
send info
If this is to be a PS, the Abstract probably
shouldn't be written in the subjunctive tense:

"we propose"... "The proposed revision would..."

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-03-06)
No email
send info
Section 4., paragraph 10:
>    Due to the interaction of route reflection [BGP-RR] and MEDs, the

  Expand the "MED" acronym.

Section 9., paragraph 1:

>    [BGP] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
>    (BGP-4)", draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-26.txt, October 2004.

  Has been published as RFC4271.


The rest are all nits that can be fixed whenever.

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 12:
>    The proposed revision would
>    help the overall network stability, and more importantly, would
>    eliminate certain BGP route oscillations in which more than one
>    external paths from one BGP speaker contribute to the churn.

  Nit: "Would?" Not "does?" (Also elsewhere in the document.)

Section 4., paragraph 1:
>    and forwarding changes in a network, thus help the overall network
>    stabilities.

  Nit: s/stabilities./stability./

Section 4., paragraph 2:
>    which more than one external paths from one BGP speaker contribute to

  Nit: s/paths/path/ s/contribute/contributes/

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection