Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08
review-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08-rtgdir-lc-berger-2017-04-25-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-05-05 | |
Requested | 2017-04-20 | |
Requested by | Alvaro Retana | |
Authors | Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Bruno Decraene , Rob Shakir | |
I-D last updated | 2017-04-25 | |
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 | Lou Berger |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2017-04-25 |
review-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08-rtgdir-lc-berger-2017-04-25-00
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08 Reviewer: Lou Berger Review Date: April 24 Intended Status: Informational Summary: I have some minor comments about this document that I think would be good, but not necessary, to be resolved before publication. Comments: This document is concise and clear. I only have minor/nit level issues that could be addressed before publication, but I don't think it critical as the document is being published as Informational. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: - Section 2 mentions reversion, while sections 3 and 4 do not. This leaves reversion requirements open to interpretation. I suggest explicitly stating if reversion is a required option or not in sections 3 and 4 as well. - Section 2 mentions 1:1 style path protection. Past/other work on protection also allowed for / uses 1+1 style protection. Is 1+1 intentionally omitted? If not, I suggest allowing for it. Nits: > referred to as local protection techniques or Fast Reroute > techniques. References should be provided for each technique. > It is essential that the primary and backup path benefit from an end- > to-end liveness monitoring/verification. The method and mechanisms > that provide such liveness check are outside the scope of this > document. Given the importance of liveness monitoring, I think it would be worth mentioned an example of such. That's it! Lou