Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04
review-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-04-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-04-21
Requested 2016-04-11
Authors Kotikalapudi Sriram , Doug Montgomery , Danny R. McPherson , Eric Osterweil , Brian Dickson
Draft last updated 2016-04-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Mach Chen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-04-21
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2016-04-21
review-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-04-21-00
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-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: April 21, 2016
IETF LC End Date: March 28, 2016
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

This document is well written and easy to read. There some minor nits that need
to be addressed before the publication.

Comments:

1. There are many places in the document that uses "we", which is not the
typical usage for an IETF draft or RFC, a common way is to use "this document"
or the like.

2. Section 3.4

"... from the customer cone of the lateral peer.", what's the mean of the
"customer cone" here? It's better to use a more common term here.

3.
s/ No updates to the registries are suggested by this document. /This document
does not require an action from IANA.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits:

Thanks,
Mach