Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03
review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-09-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-09-22
Requested 2014-09-11
Authors Nick Hilliard , Elisa Jasinska , Robert Raszuk , Niels Bakker
Draft last updated 2014-09-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by John Scudder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-09-18
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready with Issues
Completed 2014-09-18
review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-genart-lc-romascanu-2014-09-18-00

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>.



Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.



Document:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03.txt

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 9/18/14

IETF LC End Date: 9/22/14

IESG Telechat date: none



Summary:



A useful and very well written document, with a few minor issues that need
clarification and fixes before publication



Major issues:



None



Minor issues:



1.



The reference [RS-ARCH] mentioned in 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 is not reachable
(Error 404). As the understanding of the issues described in the two sections
depend on this reference, a valid reference is required.

2.



Section 4.2.1.3 uses the term ‘flat layer 2 network’ which has at least two
meanings depending on the context or layer – either one VLAN space at the link
layer (as to differentiate from Customer VLAN and Provider
 VLAN) or a bridged network with no routers between the bridged segments.
 Clarification is needed.

3.



The usage of keywords is inconsistent in a few place. In 4.6.1 the ‘should’ in
the second paragraph needs to be capitalized. In 4.6.3 we have a capitalized
SHOULD, but then a non-capitalized ‘may’ for statements
 that both seem to describe requirements of the same level.

4.



I am doubt that Section 4.7 is that useful. On one hand reliability of layer 2
forwarding is not in my opinion such a big issue, and measures can be taken a
the link layer to improve it (use lags or redundant paths).
 Second the recommended mitigation (RFC 5881 BFD) is described as non-optimal,
 with no other alternative. I would just drop this section completely.



Nits/editorial comments:



1.



The English syntax of the second paragraph in the Abstract is broken.

2.



In the introduction there is a mention of ‘using shared Layer-2 networking
media such as Ethernet’. Actually Ethernet is seldom used nowadays as a shared
media, I would just recommend saying ‘using data link layers
 protocols such as Ethernet’

3.



In section 4.2 s/optimization technique is implemented/optimization technique
that is implemented/