Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-24

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 27)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2023-07-11
Requested 2023-06-27
Authors Adrian Farrel
I-D last updated 2023-07-13
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -24 by Rich Salz (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -24 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -24 by Bob Briscoe (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -24 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -21 by John Drake (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Rich Salz
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 24 (document currently at 27)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-07-13
Sorry this is a day late.

This document explains what traffic engineering, on the Internet, is.  It is a
primer. It is also a history book, and discusses the lessons learned since the
original 3272, with many references to RFC's most of them published since that

This is a magnum opus.  This document is READY. It seems to adequately cover
application-level things by describing ALTO and related items.

I found section 1.1 a little hard to follow.  I'm not sure why, and I have no
recommendations to make.

Consider adding definitions of "ingress node" and "egress node" to 1.4

Sec 2.1, maybe change the first sentence to add "...includes the following

"the ability of the network administrators to translate policies into network
configurations."  Nice to see the human aspect mentioned.

Sec 2.3, "A network-wide view of the topology is also a must for offline
planning" Presumably not the WHOLE network; maybe add clarification?

Sec 4.1, do you need/want definitions or references for STT and ALB methods?

Sec, To a customer, a slice looks like ... "with additional information
about the level of service required between endpoints"  s/required/provided/ ?

Sec typo's "Exampls" and "netrock"

Sec space before colon and while you're there, maybe s/;/, or/  And
the "four types" described should be an unnumbered list or some such.

Sec 6, I was surprised to see the definitions of functional/non-functional be
in a different order from the sections that followed. Maybe a sentence at the
end explaining why. "This document first summarizes the non-functional
requirements, and covers the functional requirements in the following

In 6.1, is the ordering of attributes arbitrary? Could/should it be made

In 6.5, typo "conforma"

In 6.6.2, should "1+1" be "1:1" ? Apparently not, since 1+1 is not the same as
1:1  This should be mentioned.

In 6.7, "Networks are often arranged in layers"  Should arranged by
implemented?  What about Ogres (a little Shrek Joke,

Sec 8, "taken over a lot of" stuck out to me as rather informal.  "Some other
southbound interface"  What's a southbound interface?  "such as a
multi-national" add "enterprise"