Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02-rtgdir-early-niven-jenkins-2023-03-01-00

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of
​draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02.

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
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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
IPvX B?

Regards
Ben