Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-03
review-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-03-genart-lc-gurbani-2013-09-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2013-09-23 | |
Requested | 2013-09-04 | |
Authors | Cristel Pelsser , Randy Bush , Keyur Patel , Prodosh Mohapatra , Olaf Maennel | |
I-D last updated | 2013-09-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Ben Laurie (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Vijay K. Gurbani |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 04) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2013-09-06 |
review-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-03-genart-lc-gurbani-2013-09-06-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Sep-6-2013 IETF LC End Date: Unknown IESG Telechat date: Unknown This draft is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue that should be fixed (or at least looked at) before publication. Major: 0 Minor: 1 Nits: 0 Minor issue: - This is a document on the standards track. Therefore, it is rather disconcerting to see the following statement in the draft (end of Section 2): "[This document] is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction." I understand the panacea part, it is the trailing phrase that I want to draw attention to. Now, I am not a routing expert so I would presume that despite the exhortations above, the chairs of the WG and the AD have looked at the document and are comfortable with the sentence I have pointed out. (Sorry if it has been discussed in the WG.) Assuming that is the case, I am happy to proceed with this document. Assuming it is not, would an Experimental designation be appropriate? Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg at {bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani at alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq