Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
Requested revision 03 (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2021-01-10
Requested 2020-12-09
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang , Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda
I-D last updated 2021-01-10
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -06 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -03 by Samita Chakrabarti (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Mike McBride (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
The chairs are starting WGLC for the draft, we appreciate your reviews and comments.
Assignment Reviewer Mike McBride
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rift-applicability by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 15)
Result Not ready
Completed 2021-01-10
Document: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review Date: 1/10/2021
Intended Status: Informational
Review result: Has Issues

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.

Summary: Helpful informational document which has issues to be addressed before

-It could be helpful to give a brief description of why RIFT should not be used
in traditional, non Clos, Fat Tree environments to help in understanding the
applicability. -Unless it's not the intention of the draft to do so, the
benefits of RIFT need to be more clearly described. Perhaps just add a sentence
or two to each of the listed benefits. Or don't list all of the benefits and
punt to the RIFT document. -The Clos, Fat Trees concepts, and *many* acronyms,
should be simply and clearly defined (or referenced) even with assuming the
reader is familiar with the terms and concepts. Punting is not good here.
-Where's the security section?

-"There are a bunch of more advantages...". Remove bunch: "There are more
advantages...". -"RIFT is largely driven by demands...". What kind of demands?
Perhaps add "traffic" or "bandwidth".

thanks, just about there!