Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03
review-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03-rtgdir-telechat-takeda-2018-02-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-02-20
Requested 2018-01-26
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Scott Kelly (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Tomonori Takeda
Review review-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03-rtgdir-telechat-takeda-2018-02-11
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Xn1QqPxuctDYqYb3XSLMiLmiX34
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2018-02-11
Review completed: 2018-02-11

Review
review-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03-rtgdir-telechat-takeda-2018-02-11

Hello, 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 

 Document: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03.txt
 Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
 Review Date: February 11th, 2018
 IETF LC End Date: Not known
 Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary:
No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:
This document defines protocol extensions for synchronizing flow label states among PEs when using BGP-based signaling procedures.
The protocol extensions use the principles in RFC6391, which is used in LDP-based signaling procedures.
The protocol extensions are straight-forward. The document is easy to read and understand.

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
None

Nits:
1) In page 6, 3rd paragraph,
"with R = 0 NUST NOT include a ..."
Here, "NUST" should be "MUST".

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda