Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-01-23
Requested 2017-12-19
Authors Shraddha Hegde, Pushpasis Sarkar, Hannes Gredler, Mohan Nanduri, Luay Jalil
Draft last updated 2018-01-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Martin Vigoureux (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Sean Turner (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -13 by Tim Chown (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13-opsdir-telechat-chown-2018-01-22
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 16)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-01-22



I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. 

This document defines mechanism(s) to allow OSPF routers to indicate that a specific link, rather than a whole node, is entering an imminent maintenance state, to allow other devices that understand the protocol extension(s) to more gracefully re-route traffic around the affected link.

I believe the document is Ready for publication.  I have only three minor comments below, which the authors may choose to act on.

Overall the document reads reasonably well. Not being overly familiar with the material, I needed to read it through end-to-end more than once to better understand its scope and intent. My first comment would be that perhaps the introduction section could be better written; the abstract seemed clear on the purpose of the draft, while the introduction felt a little muddled.  Sections 2, 3 and 4, which detail the motivations and extensions, were much clearer.

Secondly, there are some minor typographic errors throughout the document, generally missing (in)definite articles.  While the RFC Editor would pick these up, it would be nice for the authors to have a final pass and fix those before submission.

Thirdly, the document does not give any advice on the timing of using the extensions - how far in advance is it recommended to use the extensions? - or on the return to 'normal' state once the maintenance is completed.  So perhaps consider adding a short section on this, maybe in Section 5.

Best wishes,