Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-03-01
Requested 2024-02-20
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors Ahmed Bashandy , Stephane Litkowski , Clarence Filsfils , Pierre Francois , Bruno Decraene , Daniel Voyer
I-D last updated 2024-02-28
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -12 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Wes Hardaker (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -11 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Early review of -10 by Wes Hardaker (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Andy Smith (diff)
Intdir Early review of -11 by Antoine Fressancourt (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Niven-Jenkins
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-02-28

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.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 28th February 2024
IETF LC End Date: Not known
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

The draft is well written and the scenarios and solutions described in the
draft are understandable and easy to follow.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
The paragraphs at the bottom of the introduction section provide good summary
of each section but skips over (does not provide a summary for) sections 8, 9 &
10. Was this intentional?

Section 1 - Acronyms lists TLDP as "TLDP: Target Label Distribution Protocol."