Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-12-18
Requested 2018-12-04
Authors Stephane Litkowski , Bruno Decraene , Martin Horneffer
I-D last updated 2018-12-11
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 Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-12-11
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2018-12-11
IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat



This document analyzes the impact of using non-standardized IGP Link State
implementations resulting in non-consistent tuning of parameters in the network
and increased possibility of creating micro-loops. It can be viewed as a
problem statement for standardized solutions like RFC 8405.

The document is short and clear for implementers and operators familiar with
networks running this class of protocols. Diagrams and table help in reading
and understanding the material.

Major issues:


Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:

1. In the introduction:

> For non standardized timers, implementations are free to implement it
   in any way.

It is not obvious what 'it' means. I guess it's about different values of
timers resulting in the possibility of micro-loops creation, but it would be
better to clarify.

2. It would be useful to provide short explanations that make the figures more
clear. In fig. 1 - what do the nodes represent (routers implementing the
protocols), in fig. 2, and 3 - the abbreviations on the y axis