Early Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-01
review-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-01-opsdir-early-baker-2018-08-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-01
Requested revision 01 (document currently at 51)
Type Early Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-08-24
Requested 2018-08-01
Requested by Gunter Van de Velde
Authors Keyur Patel , Acee Lindem , Shawn Zandi , Wim Henderickx
I-D last updated 2018-08-06
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -01 by Fred Baker (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Dan Frost (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -31 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -39 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -39 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -39 by Alvaro Retana (diff)
Comments 
The LSVR standardisation work can be enhanced with help of an early review from both the Routing Directorate and Operational Directorate.
Assignment Reviewer Fred Baker
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 51)
Result Ready
Completed 2018-08-06
review-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-01-opsdir-early-baker-2018-08-06-00
> On Aug 1, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Gunter Van de Velde <gunter at vandevelde.cc>
wrote: > > > Early review of: draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf (rev. 01) > Deadline:
2018-08-24 > Requested by: Gunter Van de Velde > >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf/reviewrequest/10797/ >
> Gunter Van de Velde has assigned you as a reviewer for this document.

Reviewer: Fred Baker
Review Result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

I read the draft in some detail. My big catch was, in section 5.4:

   Given the fact that SPF algorithms are based on the assumption that
   all routers in the routing domain calculate the precisely the same
   SPF tree and install the same set of routers

The assumption is that all such routers install the same set of *routes*, not
*routers*.

And frankly, if that was my biggest issue, the draft is in pretty good shape.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an
interesting comment on projected traffic volume...