Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-mrt-add-paths-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-mrt-add-paths
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-02-15
Requested 2017-02-01
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Colin Petrie, Thomas King
Draft last updated 2017-02-14
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Daniele Ceccarelli
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Vijay Gurbani
Assignment Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-mrt-add-paths-03-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2017-02-14
Reviewed rev. 03
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-02-14



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-grow-mrt-add-paths-03
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: 2017-02-14
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-15
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Very difficult to read if not familiar with the subject, maybe some more words in the intro and in section 3 and 4 when defining the new subtypes would help, but in the end I don’t expect non subject experts to read it.

Major Issues:
"No major issues found."

Minor Issues:
"No minor issues found."


Line numbering according to:
Line 87 – “the so-called MRT subtypes are utilized.” I’d drop “so-called”. I had a look at RFC 6396 and they are defined as MRT subtypes.
Line 89 – Please extend NLRI on first usage and suggest adding RFC4271 as reference
Line 94 – please extend RIB on first usage
Figure 1 – Seems to be wrongly formatted, some characters are missing

192        The values provided above are suggested as they are used in

193        implementations.
This is very risky. I’d suggest to ask for early allocation if implementations exist before the values are allocated via the normal IETF process.