Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-02
review-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-02-rtgdir-early-bhatia-2016-01-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-01-15
Requested 2016-01-15
Authors Vengada Prasad Govindan , Carlos Pignataro
I-D last updated 2016-01-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Elwyn B. Davies
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Ólafur Guðmundsson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Loa Andersson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Manav Bhatia (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Manav Bhatia
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 05)
Result Not ready
Completed 2016-01-15
review-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-02-rtgdir-early-bhatia-2016-01-15-00
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-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-01.txt

Reviewer: Manav Bhatia

Review Date: 2015-12-31

IETF LC End Date: date-if-known

Intended Status: Proposed Standard (ID says Standards track)

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

Comments:

I have issues in general readability of the draft. There were parts that were
not very clear but that could also be because i am not very conversant with
L2TP.

Major Issues:

1. The document describes how one or more than one S-BFD descriminator can be
advertised using L2TPv3 AVP. The draft when originally written was inline with
the popular idea then, that a node MAY want to advertise more than one S-BFD
descriminator. This idea however, is losing currency since the reason that
necessitated this capability is now being questioned. Given this, the authors
might need to rewrite sections of this draft, if the consensus is to remove the
notion of advertising multiple discriminators.

Minor Issues:

1. Most of the acroynms have not been expanded and referenced.

2. The figure in the draft is not clear. I dont even want to guess how that
needs to be interpreted.

Cheers, Manav