Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-04
Requested 2016-12-21
Authors Pushpasis Sarkar, Shraddha Hegde, Chris Bowers, Hannes Gredler, Stephane Litkowski
Draft last updated 2016-12-29
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Mike Shand (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by √Čric Vyncke
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-12-29
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-12-29


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 <>.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2016-12-28

IETF LC End Date:   2017-01-04 (extension 2017-01-11)

IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-05 (extended)


This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have comments.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

-Please spell out Loop-Free Alternate (LFA), Shortest Path First (SPF) at first use.

-typo in draft header:

"Internet-Draft   R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageabilty    December 2016"

                "Manageabilty"--should be-->"Manageability"

-Same typo in Section 3 header: "Manageabilty of Remote-LFA Alternate Paths"

                "Manageabilty"--should be-->"Manageability"

-[Page 6] Section 2.2.3.

"on any of the shortest path", path -->"paths"

-[Page 6] Section 2.2.3.

"from the node Y to primary nexthop E":

"one ECMP path from the node Y":

-->the example in this draft did not use the letter Y for any nodes. Would it be clearer to say node Y is defined in Section 2.2.4?

-Few occurences of "w.r.t to ", the "to" is redundant.

-[Page 1], "can be utilised "--->"can be utilized"

-[Page 9], Section 2.3

"Sections Section 2.3.1 and Section 2.3.2 shows "--->"Section 2.3.1 and Section 2.3.2 show"

-[Page 11], "To determine wether"--->"To determine whether"

-[Page 11], "primary nexthop node"-->"primary nexthop nodes"

-[Page 13], "choose only the ones that does"--->"choose only the ones that do"

-[Page 13], "not gaurantee"--->"not guarantee"

-[Page 14], "Figure 7: Toplogy with multiple ECMP primary nexthops"--->"Figure 7: Topology with multiple ECMP primary nexthops"

-[Page 14], "node-proecting"--->"node-protecting"

-[Page 15], "paths tp PQ-node R2"--->"paths to PQ-node R2"

-[Page 16], "gaurantees node-protection"--->"guarantees node-protection"

-[Page 17],  "above example above"--->"above example"

-[Page 17], "also allow user"--->"also allow the user"

-[Page 18], "the the computing"---->"the computing"

-[Page 18], "in section Section 2.3.2."---->"in Section 2.3.2." (2 occurrences)

-[Page 18], "in section Section 2.3 the"---->"in Section 2.3 the"

-[Page 18], "i.e from "---->"i.e. from "

-[Page 18], "two Remote-LFA alternate path"--->"two Remote-LFA alternate paths"

-[Page 19], "the approach proposed"----->"the proposed approach "

-[Page 19], "is needed keep "---->"is needed to keep"

-[Page 19], "entire toplogy"---->"entire topology"

-General: Is there any proof or extensive simulation that has proved that the mechanism proposed works for various network topologies and not only the one shown in the examples?

Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson Research