Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-03
review-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-03-rtgdir-early-patel-2016-05-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-05-20
Requested 2016-04-16
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Francis Dupont
Review State Completed
Reviewer Keyur Patel
Review review-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-03-rtgdir-early-patel-2016-05-20
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg02871.html
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2016-05-20
Review completed: 2016-05-20

Review
review-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-03-rtgdir-early-patel-2016-05-20









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-trill-centralized-replication-05




Reviewer: Keyur Patel




Review Date: 27-Apr-2016




Intended Status: Standards Track

























Summary:




The document is well written and seems ready for the publication. No major issues found. Minor nits are listed below. 










Major Issues:




None.










Minor Issues
















Intended Status: "Standards Track" Please.




Section 1, 3 paragraph: S/will be described/is described.







Section 11.1, Do you need to define any error conditions where multiple flag bits are set?













Regards,




Keyur