Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06-00

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

Review
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




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:




 




General:




-----------




 




QG_1:




 




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?




 




 




QG_2:




 




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”.




 




 




QG_3:




 




 




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




 




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




 




 




QG_4:




 




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




 




Please use consistent terminology.




 




 




Section 1:




------------




 




Q1_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)?




 




 




Q1_2:




 




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




 




 




Q1_3:




 




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]…”.