Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
review-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08-genart-lc-romascanu-2018-12-11-00

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Summary:

Ready

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:

none

Minor issues:

none

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