Early Review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
review-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02-rtgdir-early-jia-2015-10-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-10-05
Requested 2015-09-25
Draft last updated 2015-10-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by He Jia (diff)
Assignment Reviewer He Jia
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02-rtgdir-early-jia-2015-10-05
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-10-05

Review
review-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02-rtgdir-early-jia-2015-10-05






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. 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-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt





Reviewer: Jia He





Review Date: 30 September 2015





IETF LC End Date:  ?




Intended Status: Standards Track





 




S




Summary: 




I have no major concern about this document to go for publication. But a minor comment below is better to be considered prior to publication.







 




Comments:





This document is clearly written and easy to understand.





 




 




Major Issues:





No major issues found.





 




Minor Issues:





Section 3.1 : Operations of Scenario 1





First paragraph "T-PE2 and T-PE3 would advertise Active and Standby preferential status bit to S-PE1 respectively,...."





Second paragraph "T-PE3 then advertises Active Preferential Status to S-PE1, "




 




I guess it is typo. Should be "Preferential Forwarding status" instead of "preferential status", isn't it?




 




 




 




 




B.R.




Jia