Early Review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-05-26
Requested 2016-04-14
Authors Damascane Joachimpillai, Jamal Hadi Salim
Draft last updated 2016-05-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Will LIU (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Review review-ietf-forces-interfelfb-01-rtgdir-early-hares-2016-05-26
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-05-26



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




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-forces-interfelfb-04.txt

Reviewer: Susan Hares

Date: 5/25/2016

IETF End Date: unknown 

Intended Status: Standards track


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





Document contains good technical content for extending the Forces work into an Inter-FE LFB.   The document is easily read, but a few nits would improve its readability.



My hand check of the inter-FE LFB XML model indicated all XML is fine.  If an automated check of the XML with the Forces LFBs, it would be useful to run this check.  



The improvement in the congestion consideration section (5.1.3) between -03 and -04 was necessary.  


Major issues: none 



Page 9  figure 5. – the between figure lines is not aligned. 

This line begins with the “Ethernet Frame with:” 


Page 12 – 


/(XXX: note to editor/

New /(XXX: note to RFC editor/


Page 15 

Old /original payload i.e. skips the IFE header information./

New /original payload (i.e. skips the IFE header information)/


Page 21 



/This memo includes one IANA requests within the registry 




/This memo includes one IANA request within the registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces. /


p. 22 

Old /As such, it has no impact on their security considerations./

New/ As such, it has no impact on these documents security considerations./


Sue Hares