Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02
Requested revision 02 (document currently at 18)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-03-04
Requested 2023-02-13
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Acee Lindem , Aditya Dogra
I-D last updated 2023-03-01
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Russ White (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Early review of -13 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -15 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
This draft updates RFC 5798 to use inclusive terminologies, as well some technical changes. We'd like to request early reviews before moving the document forward.
Assignment Reviewer Ben Niven-Jenkins
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 18)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-03-01

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02.txt
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 1st March 2023
Intended Status: Standards Track

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

The document is well written and understandable.

I have two minor comments that I think should be resolved before it is
submitted to the IESG.

1) Section 1.1 bullet 3 states “Appendices describing operation over legacy
technologies (FDDI, Token Ring, and ATM LAN Emulation) were removed.” however
the diagrams in Section 4.1 & 4.2 include “Ethernet, Token Ring, or FDDI”.
Should the reference to Token Ring & FDDI be also removed from those diagrams?

2) Section 4.2 states: “In the IPv4 example above, i.e., IPvX is IPv4
everywhere in the figure, half of the hosts have configured a static default
route through Router-1's IPv4 A, and half are using Router-2's IPv4 B.” (and
has similar text in the next paragraph for IPv6), however the diagram shows all
hosts with “Default Router IPvX Addresses” of IPvX A, whereas I think the
diagram should be showing two of the four hosts with “Default Router IPvX
Addresses” of IPvX A and the other two with “Default Router IPvX Addresses” of