Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-06-04
Requested 2015-05-06
Authors Wesley George , Shane Amante
I-D last updated 2015-06-04
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Thomas Morin (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Thomas Morin (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Thomas Morin
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-06-04

In the context of Routing Area QA reviews (see

 ), 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 ‚Äč

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.

//// Note well: this review comes as a complement to a first review I

did last September. ////


Reviewer: Thomas Morin
Review Date: 2015-06-02
Intended Status: standards track

*Summary:* This document is I think ready for publication.


This is overall a very well written document, with a clear goal and

addressing its target goal.

Although it is all about local behavior, it makes sense to make a

standard track document that (a) can be used as a reference for

implementors and deployers to implement this properly, and (b) keep

track of these features in future evolutions of the protocol (as

motivated in the Conclusion section of the document).

The document has taken into account my comments made on -02, and has

gone to additional changes that bring significant improvements to the


*Major Issues:*  No major issues found

*Minor Issues:*

- it sounds weird to name "customer C" the customer attached to ISP B,

not naming it, or naming it CE-B would better match figures 4 and 5

- figures 1 and 2 could be left-right reversed to match fig 4 and 5

- "are service interrupting to the eBGP sessions of the PE", maybe could

be worded as "result in a service interruption of eBGP sessions of the

PE" ?  (or, at least,  "service-interrupting", with a dash)


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used
or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails
may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified,
changed or falsified. Thank you.