Telechat Review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12
review-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12-rtgdir-telechat-andersson-2017-05-11-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-05-11 | |
Requested | 2017-04-20 | |
Requested by | Alvaro Retana | |
Authors | Jiazi Yi , Benoit Parrein | |
I-D last updated | 2017-05-11 | |
Completed reviews |
Intdir Telechat review of -12
by Zhen Cao
(diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -12 by Loa Andersson (diff) Genart Last Call review of -12 by Peter E. Yee (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Loa Andersson |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2017-05-11 |
review-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12-rtgdir-telechat-andersson-2017-05-11-00
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-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12.txt Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2017-05-11 IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-11 (?) Intended Status: Experimental Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: The draft is well written and readable also for someone that does not read manet-draft that often. Major Issues: "No major issues found. Minor Issues: "No minor issues found." Nits: I've looked at the the GenArt review by Peter Yee and the Intdir review by Zhen Cao and largely agree with their comments. In addition: The nits tool picks on something that looks like references on line 469 ( [1] and [2] ) but is not. Don't think you'll need to fix that, the RFC Editor will fix if necessary. I'd like to have the Abstract fleshed out a bit, some more context given. If you are new to the area and the draft it is very hard to find the expected useful info in the abstract. You use "TC message" already in section 4, but TC (Traffic Control) is not expanded until section 6, should be done the first time it is used. The abbreviation "SR" is used (often as part of parameter names), but never really expanded, though one can find the expansion kind of explained at some places. Could be made clearer. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64