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 rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
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 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 rev. 08 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2020-12-28

Review
review-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08-rtgdir-lc-smith-2020-12-28

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.