Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-09
review-ietf-ospf-link-overload-09-rtgdir-lc-vigoureux-2017-12-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 16) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-12-22 | |
Requested | 2017-11-29 | |
Requested by | Acee Lindem | |
Authors | Shraddha Hegde , Pushpasis Sarkar , Hannes Gredler , Mohan Nanduri , Luay Jalil | |
I-D last updated | 2017-12-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09
by Martin Vigoureux
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Genart Telechat review of -10 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Sean Turner (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -13 by Tim Chown (diff) Genart Telechat review of -12 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
Comments |
It is not a long draft so hoping it can be reviewed this year. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Martin Vigoureux |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 16) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2017-12-22 |
review-ietf-ospf-link-overload-09-rtgdir-lc-vigoureux-2017-12-22-00
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-ospf-link-overload-9 Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux Review Date: 2017-12-22 IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: Standard Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits (see Comments) that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: So, before accepting this review I took a look at the draft and told myself "oh, not long, not apparently complicated.". Then I started reading it... I have to admit that beyond the apparent simplicity of the objective, I did not understand much at first read. So I went on reading the mailing list and discovered a field of information and more specifically discussions explaining why certain design choices were made. These are missing in the draft. I think that we should not expect readers and implementers to dig into the mailing list to understand the design described in a draft. So I'd like to encourage the authors to add some text which summarizes the discussions that happened on the list and which explains why such and such design was in the end decided. Thanks -m