Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-01
Requested 2015-08-07
Authors Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Lenny Giuliano , Eric C. Rosen , Karthik Subramanian , Dante Pacella
I-D last updated 2015-09-06
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2015-09-06
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Document:                                    
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt

Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                                  6 September 2015

IETF LC End Date:                          18 August 2015

IETF Telechat Date:                       3 September 2015

Summary:          The document is well written, and almost ready for
publication. I do have a few editorial comments, however, that the authors may
want to address.


Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:



General:

-----------



QG_1:



There are a number of abbreviations which are not expanded on first occurrence,
e.g. BGP and PIM. I guess there should also be a reference associated with them?





QG_2:



In a few places throughout the document the text says “The document [RFC7524]
extends…”, “The document [RFC7524] also defines…” etc.



I suggest to remove “The document”.





QG_3:





In a few places throughout the document the text says “procedures of [RFCXXXX]”.



I suggest to say “procedures in [RFCXXXX]”.





QG_4:



Sometimes the text says “Section X of [RFCXXXX]”, and sometimes “[RFCXXX]
section X”.



Please use consistent terminology.





Section 1:

------------



Q1_1:



In general, I think the Introduction section is very long and detailed. Would
it be possible to move some of the stuff to dedicated sections (or, at least
sub sections)?





Q1_2:



In the first sentence, should it be “an architecture” instead of “architecture”?





Q1_3:



In a few places the text says “This architecture”. Sometimes it is a little
difficult to figure out whether that refers to an architecture somewhere else,
or something defined in this document.



Would it be possible to say e.g. “The architecture defined in [REFERENCE]…”.