Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-15
review-ietf-lsvr-applicability-15-genart-lc-knodel-2024-12-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-12-25
Requested 2024-12-11
Authors Keyur Patel , Acee Lindem , Shawn Zandi , Gaurav Dawra , Jie Dong
I-D last updated 2024-12-27
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -09 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Mallory Knodel (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -21 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mallory Knodel
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/DEnBJLDmZML_zDkzHh0YI6gjVSA
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-12-27
review-ietf-lsvr-applicability-15-genart-lc-knodel-2024-12-27-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-15
Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
Review Date: 2024-12-27
IETF LC End Date: 2024-12-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This is a clear and concise document describing the why and how of
link-state vector routing BGP extensions in Clos or Fat-Tree data centre
topologies.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: This document is well written and I've only suggested
a few optional ways to improve readability that the authors might consider:

 * Abstract: The document is intended to _be_[provide] a simplified guide for
 the deployment of BGP-SPF extensions. Alternatively one could "provide
 simplified guidance..."

 * Recommended reading section should have all acronyms expanded, especially
 since it is a text that exists to help point the reader towards supporting and
 additional resources, this section should be as accessible as possible.

 * In most places where a reference appears mid-sentence, it would be more
 readable without losing fidelity to place the reference at the end of the
 sentence, eg: "The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these
 limitations. Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability
 Information (NLRI) format [RFC9552] allows the BGP-SPF data to be advertised
 for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain and used for SPF
 computations \\suggest placing [RFC9552] citation here. This is a suggestion
 to be considered throughout the text.

 * Section 3, "Data Center" would be more consistent with the rest of the
 document if it appeared lowercase here.

 * Final paragraph Section 5.2.1. it is unclear why the parenthetical exists
 when the information seems relevant to include in the sentence without
 parenthesis: "In these topologies, fabric nodes below the first tier (using
 [RFC7938] hierarchy) will establish BGP multi-hop sessions with the
 controllers."

 * Choose an acronym convention: TOR vs ToR.

 * Section 5.5.2. IGP is not expanded.

Thanks for this excellent work.