Early Review of draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00
review-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00-rtgdir-early-shand-2014-11-13-00

Request Review of draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 00)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2014-11-13
Requested 2014-08-21
Authors Les Ginsberg, Stephane Litkowski, Stefano Previdi
Draft last updated 2014-11-13
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Mike Shand
Assignment Reviewer Mike Shand
State Completed
Review review-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00-rtgdir-early-shand-2014-11-13
Reviewed rev. 00
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2014-11-13

Review
review-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00-rtgdir-early-shand-2014-11-13

  
  
    Hello,





    I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for
    draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00.txt





    The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to
    improve
    the quality of RTG Area documents as they pass through the IETF
    process.
    This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll.










Summary





      This document serves a useful purpose in clarifying the existing
      confusion, and potential interoperability issues, caused by the
      piecemeal introduction over a period of time, with varying degrees
      of rigour, of various uses for route preferences. As such it seems
      a good candidate for adoption as a WG document.







My slight concern is how we manage the process of ensuring that
      people referencing RFC5302, 5 and 8 are correctly directed to this
      document and understand where this document overrides requirements
      in the earlier documents and where it merely clarifies,  given the
      mixture of clarifications and correction that it contains.







Comments





      From a technical point of view I find the document ready to be
      adopted as a working group
      document.







I'm wondering whether a tabular form of presentation might be
      easier to assimilate than the rather verbose and repetitive
      textual descriptions.







e.g.







type | L1/L2 LSP | TLV |up/down bit | Extern bit | comments







L1 intra-area routes | 236/237 | L1 | 0 | 0 | These IPv6 prefixes are directly connected to the advertising router.










Major Issues





      No major issues found.
    




Minor Issues




Route preferences. Does it need to be specified that the route
      preferences are listed in order of most preferred first, just to
      be absolutely clear? 







Nits




There is inconsistency between the use of "zero" and "0" and
      between "one" and "1".







Is there a reason why the external bit is spelled with an upper
      case X as  eXternal?