Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01
review-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01-rtgdir-early-bocci-2016-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-10-03
Requested 2016-09-01
Authors Stephane Litkowski, Bruno Decraene, Clarence Filsfils, Pierre Francois
Draft last updated 2016-10-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Bocci 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01-rtgdir-early-bocci-2016-10-03
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-10-03

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01-rtgdir-early-bocci-2016-10-03






Apologies for the multiple copies. Adding RTG Dir.




 




Matthew




 







From: 

"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci at nokia.com>




Date: 

Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 11:22




To: 

"draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay at tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay at tools.ietf.org>




Cc: 

"rtgwg-chairs at tools.ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs at tools.ietf.org>, "rtgwg at ietf.org" <rtgwg at ietf.org>




Subject: 

Rtg Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtwg-uloop-delay-02.txt











 







Authors,




 




I have been asked to do a Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtwg-uloop-delay-02.txt




 




 




 




Summary: 




 




The rationale for this document is clear and the mechanism seems reasonably straight forward. However, one major comment that I have is that the English grammar is poor in some sections, and it is missing
 normal English articles in some places (a, an, the,…), making it hard to read. I would suggest that the authors go through the draft with a native English speaker to help resolve these nits.





 




 




Comments:




 




Minor Issues:




 




Section 2.1 Fast reroute unefficiency




s/unefficiency/inefficiency




 




Section 4.1 Definitions, 2nd bullet:




…by incrementing the timer vape when the IGP is instable.




s/instable/unstable




 




4.3 Local Events




The draft states that it assumes that only a single link failure has been seen by the IGP area. However, its not clear how you distinguish a single local failure from consecutive (non-simultaneous) failure
 that occurs within a given short timespan e.g. during the initial re-convergence period. It would help to clarify this.





 




Regards




 




Matthew