Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-05
review-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-05-rtgdir-early-andersson-2023-05-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-04
Requested revision 04 (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-05-19
Requested 2023-03-26
Requested by Stephane Litkowski
Authors Jorge Rabadan , Jayant Kotalwar , Senthil Sathappan , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Wen Lin
I-D last updated 2023-05-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Loa Andersson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Loa Andersson
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/_IYn5KvtdbXqwW3VTx7fV0T3cY8
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 09)
Result Has issues
Completed 2023-05-19
review-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-05-rtgdir-early-andersson-2023-05-19-00
There are a lot of Abbreviations unecpanded, starting with EVPN in the abstract, 
that are  not well-know  abbreviations according to the RFC Editors list at 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt

The suggestion is that the authors go over the document, look at every abbreviation
and make sure that they are properly expanded.

AS foir something that is wellknow in the multicast community, (S,G), (*,G), "S", "G"
etc. it would be good with a reference for us outsiders.

Otther than that, and that I sometimes find the language a bit "flowery", that makes
the draft slow to read (and yes I admit that I am not a subject matter expert).

Other than that I think the draft from a technical point of view is wellwritten, 
and can be progressed as soon as the nits are fixed.

/Loa