Early Review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08
review-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08-rtgdir-early-malis-2016-04-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-04-25
Requested 2016-04-14
Authors Pushpasis Sarkar, Hannes Gredler, Shraddha Hegde, Stephane Litkowski, Bruno Decraene
Draft last updated 2016-04-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Peter Yee (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Andrew Malis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Andrew Malis
State Completed
Review review-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08-rtgdir-early-malis-2016-04-25
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2016-04-25

Review
review-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08-rtgdir-early-malis-2016-04-25

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-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt

Reviewer: Andy Malis

Review Date: April 20, 2016

IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2016

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication, if the AD agrees (see below for details).

Comments and minor concerns:

I have no technical concerns with this draft.

I have noted the two comments in the AD review of this draft, and agree with them.

Given the similarity in functionality to RFC 7777 and the overlap in authorship, I expected the draft to be more or less identical to the RFC, except for the technical differences between OSPF and ISIS. However, there are parts of the RFC that are editorially better (easier to read or understand) than the equivalent text in the draft, starting with the title, Abstract, and Introduction. In particular, the Introduction in the RFC looks like the result of cleanup by the RFC Editor, but which still needs to be done in the draft. Why not take advantage of the work already done by the RFC Editor? Also, the Introduction in the draft doesn't include the usual reference to RFC 2119 terms, which is in the RFC. The Abstract in the RFC also includes more useful detail than the Abstract in the draft.

As another example, these differences are also true in Section 4.1 of the draft, when compared to the mostly equivalent Section 2.2.1 of the RFC. For example, from an editorial standpoint there is a missing "The" in the first line of the section, and there are other improvements as well. I also see editorial corrections in Section 3 of the RFC when compared to Section 5 in the draft.

I would recommend an editorial pass where the text is compared with the RFC, and when obvious, editorially improved to take advantage of work already done. This will make the RFC Editor's job easier. Alternatively, the AD could choose to include a note to the RFC Editor, noting the similarity and asking the RFC Editor to take advantage of the work that they already did for the RFC. However, having this done by the document editor would take advantage of the editor's knowledge of when differences between the two are deliberate.

Thanks,

Andy