Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-10
review-ietf-idr-add-paths-10-rtgdir-early-chen-2015-05-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-add-paths |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-05-13 | |
Requested | 2015-04-27 | |
Authors | Daniel Walton , Alvaro Retana , Enke Chen , John Scudder | |
I-D last updated | 2015-05-13 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -13
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Mach Chen (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -10 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Mach Chen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-add-paths by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2015-05-13 |
review-ietf-idr-add-paths-10-rtgdir-early-chen-2015-05-13-00
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-idr-add-path-10.txt Reviewer: Mach Chen Review Date: 2015/05/07 IETF LC End Date: Not known Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: The document is well written and easy to read. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: Abstract and Introduction s/In this document we propose/This document defines Introduction s/"Send-update Process"/Send-update Process, to align with the usage as in RFC4271. Section 4 "Send/Receive: This field indicates whether the sender is (a) able to receive multiple paths from its peer (value 1), (b) able to send multiple paths to its peer (value 2), or (c) both (value 3) for the <AFI, SAFI>." How about other values and what's the process when received value other than 1, 2 and 3? Section 5 OLD: " A BGP speaker MUST follow the existing procedures in generating an UPDATE message for a particular <AFI, SAFI> to a peer unless the BGP..." NEW: "A BGP speaker MUST follow the procedures defined in [RFC4271] in generating an UPDATE message for a particular <AFI, SAFI> to a peer unless the BGP..." " Best regards, Mach