Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-11
review-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-11-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-06-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-06-14
Requested 2016-05-27
Authors Petr Lapukhov , Ariff Premji , Jon Mitchell
I-D last updated 2016-06-13
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -10 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Yoav Nir
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Danny R. McPherson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11
Result Ready
Completed 2016-06-13
review-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-11-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-06-13-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.



For more information, please see the FAQ at



<



https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq



>.



Document:



draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 6/13

IETF LC End Date: 6/6

IESG Telechat date: 6/16



Summary:

The document is ready. It explains in a clear and detailed manner the
operational experience in the design of large data centers using L3 only
devices, Clos topology and BGP as routing protocol. I am not a routing
 expert, so I cannot validate all the statements made in the document, but the
 explanation seems clear and makes sense. The only comment I had in my IETF LC
 review was related to the lack of expansion of some of the acronyms (e.g. ASN,
 FIB ,etc.) – the issue was fixed in the revised version (11).



Major issues:



Minor issues:



Nits/editorial comments: