Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14-genart-telechat-bryant-2018-03-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-03-06
Requested 2018-02-13
Authors Huaimo Chen , Autumn Liu , Tarek Saad , Fengman Xu , Lu Huang
Draft last updated 2018-03-05
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Russ White (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -13 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Review review-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14-genart-telechat-bryant-2018-03-05
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2018-03-05
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14-genart-telechat-bryant-2018-03-05-00
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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-??
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-03-05
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-27
IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08

Summary: This is much improved since the earlier version I reviewed.

I do have a concern about the use of the term "egress" when I think that it
should be "egress node" or some such other network object.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

The authors often use the term egress on its own when I think they mean egress
PE or egress node or egress LSR. If my English concern is correct, this should
be addressed before this goes to the RFC Editor else  Auth48 will be a painful
process for all concerned.