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

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