Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-18
review-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-18-genart-early-knodel-2023-11-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Early Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-11-17
Requested 2023-10-18
Requested by Stephane Litkowski
Authors Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi , Jorge Rabadan , John Drake , Avinash Reddy Lingala , Samir Thoria
I-D last updated 2023-11-16
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -18 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Genart Early review of -18 by Mallory Knodel (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mallory Knodel
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/FhRb2ssbcfp1AJtOT06MyjJghC0
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 21)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2023-11-16
review-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-18-genart-early-knodel-2023-11-16-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. Please resolve these
comments along with any other comments you may receive.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
Review Date: 16 Nov 2023

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: Section 3 as the Solution Overview seems out of step with the
remaining sections in that it properly describes the relationships between 4, 5
and 6, but it appears that 7-10 are additional over arching considerations that
might benefit from being extracted from the discussion of direct solutions.
Suggesting perhaps that 4, 5 and 6 be treated under the solution space, whereas
the remaining substantive sections 7-10 be presented as additional
considerations and tradeoffs but not direct descriptions of full solutions to
the problems outlined in the introduction.

Minor issues: Not all acronyms are properly expanded in order of their
first-time use which hinders readability. Seems 12. Operational Considerations
is superfluous and plenty of document dependencies also do not have this
section.

Nits/editorial comments: The focus of my review did not expose any
nits/editorial comments though I believe there are some that have persisted
across the various versions that I compared and I would encourage the authors
to do a full copy edit ahead of IESG submission.