Telechat Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10
review-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-05-31
Requested 2016-04-27
Authors Petr Lapukhov, Ariff Premji, Jon Mitchell
Draft last updated 2016-05-16
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -10 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Yoav Nir
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Danny McPherson (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -09 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-16
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-05-16

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-05-16






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




For more information, please see the FAQ at




 




<




https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq 

>.




 




Document: 


draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc




Reviewer: Dan Romascanu




Review Date: 5/16




IETF LC End Date: N/A




IESG Telechat date: 6/2




 




Summary:




The document is ready. It explains in a clear and detailed manner the operational experience in the design of large data centers using L3 only devices, Clos topology and BGP as routing protocol. I am not a routing expert, so I cannot
 validate all the statements made in the document, but the explanation seems clear and makes sense. The only comment I have is related to the lack of expansion of some of the acronyms (e.g. ASN, FIB ,etc.) – even if they are obvious for routing experts it would
 help to expand them at first occurrence. 




 




Major issues:




 




Minor issues:




 




Nits/editorial comments: