Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-09-13
Requested 2016-08-29
Authors Keyur Patel , Rex Fernando , John Scudder , Jeffrey Haas
I-D last updated 2016-09-13
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Mach Chen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Mach Chen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Emmanuel Baccelli (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -15 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Emmanuel Baccelli
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 16)
Result Has nits
Completed 2016-09-13

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 ​

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


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


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 and minor suggestions below can be considered, aiming to improve

Working group indication:

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


 - 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

  => 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.