Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03
review-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03-rtgdir-early-takeda-2017-05-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03
Requested revision 03 (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-04-30
Requested 2017-03-31
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Stephane Litkowski , Bruno Decraene , Martin Horneffer
I-D last updated 2017-05-02
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tim Chown
Assignment Reviewer Tomonori Takeda
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 10)
Result Has issues
Completed 2017-05-02
review-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03-rtgdir-early-takeda-2017-05-02-00
Hi,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for this draft.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: April 29, 2017
Intended Status: Standards Track

Here are my comments.

Overall, the document is well organized and clear about problem statement and
analysis of SPF triggers and SPF delays impact on micro-loops.

Some specific comments.

1) The document is intended to be Standards Track. I do not think it is common
for such analysis document to be Standards Track.

2) Just a nits, but in page 12, it says "In the figure 5", but it seems figures
are not numbered.

3) In Section 4.2. Exponential backoff, it is not clear what is a condition (or
conditions) to move from FM to BM.

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda