Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07
review-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07-rtgdir-early-baccelli-2016-09-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-09-13
Requested 2016-08-29
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Mach Chen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Mach Chen (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -15 by Bruno Decraene
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Qin Wu
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Yoav Nir
Review State Completed
Reviewer Emmanuel Baccelli
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07-rtgdir-early-baccelli-2016-09-13
Posted at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg03127.html
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 15)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2016-09-13
Review completed: 2016-09-13

Review
review-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07-rtgdir-early-baccelli-2016-09-13

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-bgp-gr-notification-07

Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli

Review Date: Sept. 12th 2016 

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: 

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

This document is clearly written and easy to understand.  

I am not a BGP specialist, and in particular I was not familiar with the details of BGP Graceful restart before I have reviewed, so I had to go back and read RFC4724. 

It may mean that my review is not sufficiently in-depth, or that the nits I point out and my editorial suggestions may be too pedantic.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

Nits and minor suggestions below can be considered, aiming to improve readability.

Working group indication:

 - indicate IDR working group at the top of the document (for now it says "Network working group")

Abstract:

 - for clarity, append at the end of last sentence "and for force a full reset"?

 

Section 2

 - in restart flags, for completeness, recall that R flag is specified in RFC4724 and what it indicates.

 - recall that reserved/unspecified fields must be zeroed (and ignored)?

 - spell out acronyms AFI and SAFI (in terminology section, as coming from RFC4724?) before first use in the document

 - in Address family flags: remove "deprecated" specification text

 

 

 Section 4:

 - "When a BGP speaker resets its session due to a HOLDTIME expiry, it should generate..."

  => s/should/SHOULD 

   

   

 Section 4.1:

 - the last paragraph of section 4.2 of RFC4724 states that support for the stale route retain timer is a MAY. 

 It seems appropriate to specify upfront that this timer is now a MUST?

 - "This supersedes the "consecutive restarts" requirement of [RFC4724] S. 4.2." 

 => for convenience indicate which paragraph (3rd paragraph) of RFC4724 S. 4.2.