A Framework for Loop-Free Convergence
RFC 5715
Yes
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment
(2009-10-07)
Unknown
Very nice document overall! Section 6.5., paragraph 5: > This > could, for example, be achieved by allocating a Type of Service bit > to the task[RFC0791]. This mechanism works identically for both > "bad-news" and "good-news" events. It also works identically for > SRLG failure. There are three problems with this solution: There is no "ToS byte" anymore since DiffServ was published. Using a DSCP for that purpose is also not really in tune with the DiffServ architecture. Suggest to remove this example or point out in the list following this paragraph that that's also a drawback.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2009-10-08)
Unknown
Section 3 has Throughout this document we use the term SRLG to describe the procedure to be followed when multiple failures have occurred whether or not they are members of an explicit SRLG. s/to describe/when describing/ --- Echo the point on the the ToS byte. Suggest to completely remove the sentence. --- I think it is unfortunate that section 12 is so skinny. I presume that if I am able to induce micro loops (perhaps by flapping a resource) I could cause considerable network disruption and so using loop prevention or mitigation is a protection.
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown