Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09
review-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09-intdir-telechat-thaler-2024-08-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-08-16
Requested 2024-08-06
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi , Luc André Burdet , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan
I-D last updated 2024-08-13
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -09 by Ines Robles (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -09 by Toerless Eckert (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dave Thaler
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/_k0K5M06_7CSAl2pf2b-iKWKGiw
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-08-13
review-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09-intdir-telechat-thaler-2024-08-13-00
I am the assigned INTDIR reviewer.  I found the document
well written and easy to read, other than a number of
typos and grammatical errors. 

A PDF with my comments marked up inline can be found at:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aqj-Bj9PNivcn_xoEc8XRepNkAgJaQ?e=7keL4H

A few of my comments are listed below, but see the PDF for
many more trivial ones.

Section 1.4: "The fast DF recovery solution maintains backwards-compatibility
      (see Section 4) by ensuring that PEs any unrecognized new BGP
      Extended Community."
I can't parse grammar around "PEs any unrecognized".  Perhaps a
word missing?

Section 2.1: Is it worth adding that the seconds are encoded
in network byte order? This might be assumed by most readers
but might not hurt to say explicitly.  Up to you.

Section 3: "To maintain the preference for minimal loss over duplicate traffic,
   PE1 should carve slightly before PE2 (with skew)."
Should the "should" be MUST or SHOULD?

Section 4: "[RFC7432] and do not rely on the new SCT BGP extended community."
And what?  Seems like something is missing here.

Dave