Early Review of draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection-02
review-ietf-trill-tree-selection-02-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2016-01-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-tree-selection
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-01-15
Requested 2016-01-15
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
Review review-ietf-trill-tree-selection-02-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2016-01-15
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg02780.html
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2016-01-15
Review completed: 2016-01-15

Review
review-ietf-trill-tree-selection-02-rtgdir-early-ceccarelli-2016-01-15






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-tree-selection-01


Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli


Review Date: Jan 07 2015


IETF LC End Date: September 2015

 


Intended Status: Standard Track







Summary:

 










This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.








Comments:










Overall the draft if well written and easy to understand. I found it quite difficult to go through section 1 but I guess it’s due to my lack of knowledge of the technology. A rearrangement accordingly to the
 minor issues IMO would improve readability of the document.  







Major Issues:










No major issues found







Minor Issues:










Section 3.2 – A list of the 4 TLVs with their name and one sentence summarizing its use would improve readability. Same applies in the following to e.g. section 3.2.1 where the paragraph before the figure
 is not very clear on the usage of the TLV.




Section 3.5 – Section 3.5 defines a fifth TLV, why not listing it with the other 4 ?







Nits:










Section 1.1: s/ the ingress RBridge use/the ingress RBridge uses




Section 2: s/campus/Campus




Section 3.1 s/is/has ??




Section 3.3 s/rfc7180bis/RFC7180bis




BR


Daniele