Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-09-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-23
Requested 2017-08-09
Authors Percy Tarapore, Robert Sayko, Greg Shepherd, Toerless Eckert, Ramki Krishnan
Draft last updated 2017-09-02
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Nevil Brownlee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-09-02
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 14)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2017-09-02

Review
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-09-02

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>



Document:                       draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt

Reviewer:                         Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                   2 September 2017

IETF LC End Date:           23 August 2017

IETF Telechat Date:        N/A



Summary: The document is well written. However, there are a couple of issues that I'd like the authors to address.


Major Issues: None



Minor Issues:



Q1: The Introduction talks about the growing usage of multicast, and the it begins the list what the document does. But, what is the background and need for the document? Is there a problem? Are there interoperability issues? At the end of the section it is said that ways to improve are identified, but it is unclear exactly what needs to be improved. I think it would be good to say a few words in the Introduction about the issues and problems.


Editorial Issues:

Q2: The title of section 4 is "Supporting Functionality". That seems a little strange in my eyes. Supporting functionality of what?