Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08
review-ietf-sfc-architecture-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-05-22-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sfc-architecture |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2015-05-25 | |
| Requested | 2015-05-14 | |
| Authors | Joel Halpern, Carlos Pignataro | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-05-22 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Tom Taylor
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Simon Josefsson (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tom Taylor |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-sfc-architecture-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-05-22 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 08 (document currently at 11) | |
| Review result | Ready with Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2015-05-22 |
Review
review-ietf-sfc-architecture-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-05-22
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08 Reviewer: Tom Taylor Review Date: 2015-05-17 IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-25 IESG Telechat date: 2015-05-28 Summary: There is one IPR declaration, which was repeated for two predecessor documents but not for the current draft. The draft is basically ready to go with a very minor issue and a few nits. Major issues: Minor issues: The Security Considerations section rightly mentions the need to avoid leaking SFC information. However, it does this under the heading of "Classification". Could I suggest that the first two sentences of the "Classification" bullet be separated out under the title "Boundaries"? Nits/editorial comments: Sec. 1.2, third bullet from the bottom: spell out SFF on first use, and give a forward reference to the next section, i.e., "...interconnect the Service Function Forwarders (SFFs, see next section) ..." Sec. 1.2, next bullet: according to the RFC Editor Style Guide abbreviations list, FIB and RIB are not well-known abbreviations, hence need to be spelled out. Sec. 1.3, Service Function Forwarder, last line: spell out SFP? I know the definition is just a few lines down, so this is a maybe. Alternative suggestion: introduce a Section 1.3.1 at the beginning of the section, as follows: "1.3.1 Key Abbreviations The terms listed here are defined in Section 1.3.2. SF Service Function SFC Service Function Chain or Service Function Chaining SFF Service Function Forwarder SFP Service Function Path RSP Rendered Service Path" Sec. 2.1, second para., third line from bottom: s/the the/the/