Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

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

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

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


    I have some minor comments about this document that I think would be
good, but not necessary, to be resolved before publication.


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.


>   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!