Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb-01
review-ietf-forces-interfelfb-01-rtgdir-early-hares-2016-05-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb
Requested revision 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 M. Joachimpillai , Jamal Hadi Salim
I-D 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 (Shucheng) LIU (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2016-05-26
review-ietf-forces-interfelfb-01-rtgdir-early-hares-2016-05-26-00
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



​

http://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-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.



Comments:

·



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



Nits:

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

This line begins with the “Ethernet Frame with:”



Page 12 –

Old

/(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



Old

/This memo includes one IANA requests within the registry

https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/



New

/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