Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08
review-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08-tsvart-lc-tuexen-2019-06-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-06-04
Requested 2019-05-21
Authors Fred Baker , Chris Bowers , Jen Linkova
I-D last updated 2019-06-06
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Michael Tüxen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/k5SFIL9b4fSGeuhLCzgZorE1o8E
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2019-06-06
review-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-08-tsvart-lc-tuexen-2019-06-06-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The document looks good from my perspective, but could make two things clearer:
* If the connectivity to one ISP break down all transport connections without specific
  multihoming support will break. This includes all TCP connections.
* The description of transport based alternatives in section 7.3 is pretty generic.
  However, this might be acceptable since the main argument that it is right now
  not an alternative due to limited deployment, is valid.

Best regards
Michael