Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08
review-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08-rtgdir-lc-smith-2020-12-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-12-24
Requested 2020-12-10
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Stewart Bryant , George Swallow , Mach Chen , Giuseppe Fioccola , Greg Mirsky
Draft last updated 2020-12-28
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Andy Smith (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Mirja Kühlewind (diff)
Comments
Prep for IETF Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Andy Smith
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08-rtgdir-lc-smith-2020-12-28
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/1NOfu-FE0yLLIuOEuiR_oFwMTpM
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2020-12-28
review-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08-rtgdir-lc-smith-2020-12-28-00
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-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08.txt
Reviewer: Andy Smith
Review 28 December 2020
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

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

Comments:

The document is easy to follow.   It is a novel idea that solves a reasonable
to understand problem.

Major Issues:

Nothing obvious.

Minor Issues:

Section 5:

This it is proposed -> Thus it is proposed

Section 6:

large set of overlapping measurement type -> large set of overlapping
measurement types

"increased operation and capital cost" -> do you really want to make this
claim?   If so need to quantify it.

Section 7.1:

"when a packet had a delay relative to its predecessor of 2us both the up to
1us and the 2us counter"   doesn't make sense.  reword

Section 7.2:

"Characteristic’s 1 and 2"   no apostrophe needed

Section 7.3:

"create a large demand on storage in the instrumentation system" -> quantify
this if this claim is going to be made

Section 9.1:

"Editor’s Note we" - Clarify who 'we' is.  The authors?  the WG?   don't use
first person.

Nits:

A number of run-on sentences are in the document, especially in the
Introduction.   While not fatal, it makes it a chore to read in parts.  
Consider breaking some long sentences apart.

There is a lack of comma usage throughout the document, a nit, but hurts
readability.