Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-05-07
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Authors David Dolson, Shunsuke Homma, Diego Lopez, Mohamed Boucadair
Draft last updated 2018-05-21
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Ines Robles (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Sean Turner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-05-21
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2018-05-21



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,
and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äč

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-sfc-hierarchical-08
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 05-21-2018
Intended status: Informational


I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful.
The draft presents some minor issues that I think should be resolved before publication.


Major Issues: No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

- It would be nice to add a terminology section that references section 1.4 of rfc7665, section 1.3 of rfc8300 (since you are using NSH-aware defined there) and add definitions such as IBN.
- Question: about this sentence in pag. 3: "...The "domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under the
   control of a single organization...". Is it the same if we say "...The "SFC-Enabled Domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under the
   control of a single organization ..."?
-- It would be nice to expand NSH in the Introduction section.
-- In Figure 1, it would be nice to add a number to the Classifiers, e.g.CF#1, then when you mention that in the text you can reference it, e.g. "One path is shown from edge classifier (CF#1) to SFF1 to Sub-domain#1..."
-- In Figure 6, it would be nice to add in the legend section the meaning for DPI.