Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-simple-va
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-06-12
Requested 2012-05-31
Authors Robert Raszuk, Jakob Heitz, Alton Lo, Lixia Zhang, Xiaohu Xu
Draft last updated 2012-06-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Meral Shirazipour
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-simple-va-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2012-06-11
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2012-06-11


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at  <>.


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


Document: draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: June-11-2012

IETF LC End Date: June-12-2012

IESG Telechat date: June-21-2012



This draft is almost ready to be published as Informational RFC but I do have some comments.


Minor issues:

-[Page 1], Abstract, not clear what is the simplification of S-VA in comparison to VA. Suggestion: a sentence or two in the abstract could clarify this 

"In contracts to VA, S-VA reduces operational complexity by ..."


Nits/editorial comments:

-Consistency: [Page 4], 2nd to last paragraph: "core routers, to ABRs", expand "ABRs"-->"Area Border Routers (ABRs)"

-Consistency: [Page 4], 2nd to last paragraph: "to the ASBR routers", expand "ASBR"-->"to AS Border Routers (ASBRs)"

-Typo: [Page 5], Section 1: "rather then"--> "rather than"

-Clarity: [Page 5], Section 1, same sentence as above typo, add commas after "can" and "RIB":

"In configurations where BGP routes are used to resolve other routes

or where BGP routes are redistributed to other protocols which both

happen via RIB simple-va can[,] rather then suppressing routes before

they are installed in global RIB[,] flag them as "suppress eligible".


-Consistency: Perhaps run over draft and change all: "loc-RIB"-->"Loc-RIB"

-Consistency: Perhaps run over draft and change all: "simple-va"-->"S-VA"

-Clarity: [Page 6],"product of SPF"-->"product of Shortest Path First (SPF)"

-Clarity: [Page 6],Section 2, last paragraph: "scenarios for S-VA - "-->"scenarios for S-VA : "

-Consistency: [Page 7], Figure should have a caption (and last paragraph p.7 should refer to Figure 1) 

-Consistency: [Page 7]&[Page 8], spell out EP and EBGP when first use.

-Clarity: [Page 8] paragraph 1, "suppression routes"-->"suppression of all routes"

-Clarity: [Page 8],last paragraph: "needs to pointed"-->"needs to be pointed"

-Typo: [Page 8],last sentence: "more then"-->"more than"

-Clarity: [Page 8][Page 9], point form after "the following solutions could be considered:", it is not clear what is a title, what is the explanation.

Please correct this.(Suggestion, perhaps use ":" after the title, before the explanation.)

-Typo: [Page 9], "etc .."--> "etc."







Meral Shirazipour