Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12

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

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 

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


This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication.


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."


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

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 Andersson                        email:
Senior MPLS Expert                
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64