Early Review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04
review-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-04-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-04-21
Requested 2016-04-11
Authors Kotikalapudi Sriram, Doug Montgomery, Danny McPherson, Eric Osterweil, Brian Dickson
Draft last updated 2016-04-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Mach Chen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-04-21
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-04-21

Review
review-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-04-21

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-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: April 21, 2016
IETF LC End Date: March 28, 2016
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

This document is well written and easy to read. There some minor nits that need to be addressed before the publication.

Comments:

1. There are many places in the document that uses "we", which is not the typical usage for an IETF draft or RFC, a common way is to use "this document" or the like. 

2. Section 3.4

"... from the customer cone of the lateral peer.", what's the mean of the "customer cone" here? It's better to use a more common term here. 

3.
s/ No updates to the registries are suggested by this document. /This document does not require an action from IANA.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits:

Thanks,
Mach