Telechat Review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11
review-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11-genart-telechat-carpenter-2017-11-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-12-12
Requested 2017-11-01
Authors Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Bruno Decraene , Rob Shakir
I-D last updated 2017-11-10
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 Telechat review on draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-11-10
review-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11-genart-telechat-carpenter-2017-11-10-00
Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

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-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-11-11
IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-04
IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14

Summary: Ready
--------

Comment:
--------

When I reviewed this for Last Call, I had two general concerns:
1) Is it useful to publish use cases now, at the end of
protocol development?
2) The AD review dated 2017-04-20 pointed out that the
document should be historically consistent.

I'm going to assume that since the AD is bringing the draft
to the IESG, he's now happy on these two points.

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

I originally commented that Section 3 doesn't actually mention
any specific requirements for Spring. In conversation with
Stefano:

>> Right, but you don't state any *requirements* for SPRING that result from this case,
>> except the very general statement before section 3.1. Maybe that does translate
>> into specific requirements, but I don't see how.

> the generic requirement is the ability to instantiate source routed paths.
> These source routed paths, in the framework of this draft, are for LFAs.

I still think that Section 3 doesn't identify this requirement.
Maybe it's obvious to one skilled in the art, however. So
I'm going to say "Ready".