Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-08-17
Requested 2022-08-02
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Ketan Talaulikar , Peter Psenak , Shawn Zandi , Gaurav Dawra
I-D last updated 2022-08-17
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Andrew G. Malis (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09-rtgdir-lc-eastlake-2022-08-17
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 12)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2022-08-17

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

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-ls-flex-algo-09
Reviewer: Donald E. Eastlake III
Review Date: 2022-08-16
IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-17
Intended Status: Proposed Standard


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


This is a straightforward and relatively easy to read document. The
inclusion of the Flexible Algorithm Unknown sub-TLV is an interesting and
useful detail. I found a number of nits.

*Major Issues:*

No major issues found.

*Minor Issues:*

No minor issues found.


In Flexible Algorithm D/definition, the capitalization of "definition"
should be consistent. I suggest it be capitalized.

In abstract, suggest "propagated (viz. OSPF and IS-IS flooding) through the
network" -> "propagated through the network by OSPF and IS-IS flooding"

Section 1, top of page 3: "Flexible Algorithm is called so as" -> "Flexible
Algorithm is so called because"

Maybe it's just me but "leverage" seems to be an overly complicated word
with a faint whiff of marketing about it. Suggest, in Section 1,
"leverated" -> "used", "leveraging" -> "using"

Section 2: Expand SRLG on first use.

Reference to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy should be to RFC 9256.

Global: "e.g. " -> "e.g.," (replace space after "e.g." with a comma) In
some cases it might read better to replace "e.g. " with "for example,"

Global: "ISIS" -> "IS-IS"

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA