Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-10-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-09
Requested 2018-09-25
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Brian Carpenter
Review review-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-10-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/836pqDq8dNw5h-grbjA7ZGVJV3I
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2018-10-02
Review completed: 2018-10-02

Review
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-10-02

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-10-02
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-09
IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: Ready with issues
--------

Comments: 
---------

I agree with the point raised in the Routing Area review
(be explicit about the updated sections of RFC 6514, 6625,
and 7524).

Minor issues:
-------------

As I understand it, if a network only partially supports the new
(LIR-pF) flag, it doesn't work properly. So we find at the end of
section 2:

...the ingress node can conclude
   that the egress node originating that Leaf A-D route does not support
   the LIR-pF flag.

   The software at the ingress node SHOULD detect this, and should have
   a way of alerting the operator that the deployment is not properly
   configured.

I don't see why this is only a SHOULD, and I don't see why the operator
alert is not a MUST too. Surely the operator always needs to be alerted?