Telechat Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-
review-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-secdir-telechat-emery-2012-01-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-01-03
Requested 2011-12-21
Draft last updated 2012-01-05
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -?? by Suresh Krishnan
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Shawn Emery
Assignment Reviewer Shawn Emery
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-secdir-telechat-emery-2012-01-05
Review completed: 2012-01-05

Review
review-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-secdir-telechat-emery-2012-01-05

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

This informational draft describes optimizations for Loop-Free Alternates (LFA)
in Service Provider (SP) networks.

The security considerations section does exist and states that there is
no new security considerations, which I believe to be the case.

General comments:

Not being a routing expert this was slow to read (e.g. not knowing some of the
unexpanded abbreviations and terminology).  As a result, the editorial comments are just
from the Abstract and Introduction sections.

Editorial comments:

s/applicability of LoopFree Alternates/applicability of LoopFree Alternates (LFA)/
s/Service Provider networks/Service Provider (SP) networks/
I haven't looked the common abbreviations list, but should ISIS, et. al. be expanded?

Shawn.
--