Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-01
Requested 2015-08-07
Draft last updated 2015-09-06
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-06


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>

Document:                                     draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt

Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                                  6 September 2015

IETF LC End Date:                          18 August 2015

IETF Telechat Date:                       3 September 2015

Summary:          The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I do have a few editorial comments, however, that the authors may want to address. 

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial Issues:







There are a number of abbreviations which are not expanded on first occurrence, e.g. BGP and PIM. I guess there should also be a reference associated with them?





In a few places throughout the document the text says “The document [RFC7524] extends…”, “The document [RFC7524] also defines…” etc.


I suggest to remove “The document”.






In a few places throughout the document the text says “procedures of [RFCXXXX]”.


I suggest to say “procedures in [RFCXXXX]”.





Sometimes the text says “Section X of [RFCXXXX]”, and sometimes “[RFCXXX] section X”.


Please use consistent terminology.



Section 1:





In general, I think the Introduction section is very long and detailed. Would it be possible to move some of the stuff to dedicated sections (or, at least sub sections)?





In the first sentence, should it be “an architecture” instead of “architecture”?





In a few places the text says “This architecture”. Sometimes it is a little difficult to figure out whether that refers to an architecture somewhere else, or something defined in this document.


Would it be possible to say e.g. “The architecture defined in [REFERENCE]…”.