Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Early Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-01-04
Requested 2017-12-07
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Lixing Wang , Mach Chen , Amit Dass , Hariharan Ananthakrishnan , Sriganesh Kini , Nitin Bahadur
I-D last updated 2018-04-04
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by John Scudder (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -10 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Mike McBride (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -09 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Please ask John Scudder if he will re-review the document to see if his comments are resolved.  If John Scudder does not have time, please let me know.  I will suggest other people.
Assignment Reviewer Sarah Banks
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2018-04-04
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Upon review, I think the document is in decent shape, but needs work in the WG
first. There are 3 things I'd like to point out:

1. There are areas in the document where we assume the reader knows <x>, but
the document text could be helped if the authors were more concise in their
wording. For example:

"At the same time, nexthop chains can be used to specify multiple  headers over
a packet, before that particular packet is forwarded. Not every network device
will be able to support all kinds of nexthop chains along with the arbitrary
number of headers which are chained together."

I would think that while this might often be true, it doesn't have to always be
true, and depending on how wide the domain is, it might not be true. I realize
this isn't written with normative language, and it's a minor point, but it
lacks precision.

2. Nits has issues. Yup, a lot of authors think we'll just toss it in the queue
and let the RFC Editors fix this, but I think it's our job to be sending clean
docs into the queue. We pay for the RFC Editors service, why have them spending
time on things we have a tool that allows the authors to do this for
themselves? Fix your nits. :)

3. The document violates the number of named authors at the top - another
expense of RFC Editors time and effort I don't think we should be doing. I'd
prefer to see the authors/WG/WG Chairs address these items before they go into
the queue.