Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-10-11
Requested 2017-09-27
Authors Pierre Francois , Bruno Decraene , Cristel Pelsser , Keyur Patel , Clarence Filsfils
I-D last updated 2017-10-09
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Matthew A. Miller (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Susan Hares
Assignment Reviewer Matthew A. Miller
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2017-10-09
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


Document: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-11
Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
Review Date: 2017-10-09
IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-11
IESG Telechat date: N/A


This document is ready to be published as an Informational document, but
there is one issue that I think clarification would help.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

In Section 4. "EBGP graceful shutdown procedure", it states that 0 can
used in all cases except where the AS already has a special meaning for
0. It seems to me more ought to be said, but I admit I'm not well-versed
on (I) BGP and might be seeing dragons where only windmills are present.

Nits/editorial comments:

* I suggest using RFC 8174 and its terminology boiler plate to help
  disambiguate "may" versus "MAY".

* A number of acronyms are used throughout without being spelled out (e.g.,
  RR, IBGP, FIB, EBGP, AS), but some (e.g., ASBR) are spelled out.  I would
  find it helpful to be consistent here, preferably by spelling them out on
  first use.

* In Section 1. "Introduction", second paragraph, the word "operation"
  seems to be missing from the first sentence:

  This document discusses operational procedures to be applied in order
  to reduce or eliminate loss of packets during a maintenance.

* Throughout the Appendices, there are some inconsistent uses of some terms,
  especially when compared to the rest of the document:

  - "Local-Pref" versus "LOCAL_PREF"
  - "nexhop" versus "NEXT_HOP"

* In Appendix A. "Alternative techniques with limited applicability", the
  phrase "describe them" ought to be "describes them".