Telechat Review of draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03
review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-genart-telechat-romascanu-2014-10-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-10-14 | |
Requested | 2014-10-08 | |
Authors | Nick Hilliard , Elisa Jasinska , Robert Raszuk , Niels Bakker | |
I-D last updated | 2014-10-13 | |
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 | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2014-10-13 |
review-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03-genart-telechat-romascanu-2014-10-13-00
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: 10/16/14 Summary: This document was not updated since my initial review, so my comments still stand. 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/