Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10
review-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2018-04-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-04-19 | |
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 | 2018-04-16 | |
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) |
|
Comments |
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 | Mike McBride |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2018-04-16 |
review-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2018-04-16-00
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model. Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10 Reviewer: Mike McBride Review Date: 13-04-2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Comments: I only found a few nits. Looks like it’s been through several reviews and otherwise looks good to go to me. The nits that I think should be considered: 2.2. Routing Instance and Rib ---Should "Rib" be "RIB"? 2.4. Nexthop A nexthop represents an object resulting from a route lookup. As illustrated in Section 2.4 of [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model], to support various use cases (e.g., load balance, protection, multicast ---Should "load balance" be "load balancing"? 1.1. Definitions and Acronyms ---Should RPC be added? How about FIB? Right now only RIB is defined. 2.5. RPC Operations route-add: Add a route or a set of routes to a RIB. A RIB name, the route prefix(es), route attributes, route vendor attributes, nexthop and whether return failure detail are passed as the input ---How about "detail" be "details". parameters. Before calling the route-add rpc, it is required to call the nh-add rpc to create and/or return the nexthop identifier but during situations when the nexthop already exists and the nexthop-id is known, this action is not expected.. The output is a ---This sentence is awkward to me. I would recommend changing it to two sentences as long as it doesn’t alter the intent: "Before calling the route-add rpc, it is required to call the nh-add rpc to create and/or return the nexthop identifier. However, in situations when the nexthop already exists, and the nexthop-id is known, this call action is not expected." Sound reasonable? mike