Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
review-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08-rtgdir-lc-takeda-2018-12-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-12-18
Requested 2018-12-04
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 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
Review State Completed
Reviewer Tomonori Takeda
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08-rtgdir-lc-takeda-2018-12-17
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/XsiF-bwqj_64EW3qLjbP5Fu7Ieo
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-12-17
Review completed: 2018-12-17

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08-rtgdir-lc-takeda-2018-12-17

Hello,

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 
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
  Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
  Review Date: Dec. 17th, 2018
  IETF LC End Date: Dec. 18th, 2018
  Intended Status: Informational

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

Comments:
This document analyzes the impact of SPF delay algorithm and associated 
triggers on IGP micro-loops. This document presents useful information 
on how mixing strategies may lead to longer micro-loops. The document is 
well organized, easy to read.

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
None

Nits:
1) Section 2 says

   "That part may be the main part for the first iteration but is not for
    subsequent IGP events.  In addition, this part is very implementation
    specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay
    algorithm may be standardized."

It would be better to explain what "That part" and "this part" mean.
I guess the text should look like:

   "The time to update the FIB may be the main part for the first
    iteration of IGP event but is not for subsequent IGP events.
    In addition, the time to update the FIB is very implementation
    specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay
    algorithm may be standardized."


Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda