Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
RFC 8102
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
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?
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Record
awaiting clearance of the ops review