Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08
review-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-04-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-05-04
Requested 2017-04-20
Authors Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Bruno Decraene , Rob Shakir
I-D last updated 2017-04-30
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Lou Berger (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Dacheng Zhang (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2017-04-30
review-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08-genart-lc-carpenter-2017-04-30-00
Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-05-01
IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-04
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: Ready with issues
--------

Comment:
--------

I wonder about the value to the community of publishing use cases and
requirements late in the standards process. They clearly have value
while designing solutions, but do they really have archival value, since
RFC7855 was published a year ago? (An alternative approach to use case
documents is to structure them as example applications to validate the
protocol design, but that would be a major rewrite.)

Major issue: 
------------

I agree with the AD review dated 2017-04-20; if we publish a use case
document of this kind, it should be historically consistent.

Minor issue:
------------

The text of section 3 doesn't explain what requirements for SPRING it
generates. Really it just describes what any IGP will do anyway.
How does that impact SPRING? If there is no impact, please say so!

The other sections are quite clear on this aspect.