Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-12-12
Requested 2017-11-28
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Zhuangyan, Danian Shi, Rong Gu, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Draft last updated 2018-01-07
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Reshad Rahman (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Carlos Martínez (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
This is a request for a QA review.  It will run parallel to the WG LC for this document.
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Bocci
State Completed
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03-rtgdir-early-bocci-2018-01-07
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2018-01-07



I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft:

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for
publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time
during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of
the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.

As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review
was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please
consider my comments along with the other working group last call

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03.txt
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: 5th January 2018
Intended Status: Standards Track


I have significant concerns about this document. It needs more work
before being submitted to the IESG.


The rationale for this document is clear and I did not note any major
technical comments. However, one major comment that I have is that the
English grammar and usage is poor in some sections, and it is missing
normal English articles in some places (a, an, the,…), making it hard to
read. I would suggest that the authors go through the draft with a
native English speaker to help resolve these before handing the draft to
the IESG.