Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 09)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)|
|Requested by||Deborah Brungard|
|Authors||Vishnu Beeram, Ina Minei, Rob Shakir, Dante Pacella, Tarek Saad|
|Draft last updated||2017-07-27|
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Victoria Pritchard
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Liang Xia (diff)
Review in preparation for IETF Last Call.
|Reviewed rev.||05 (document currently at 09)|
|Review result||Has Nits|
Hello, 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 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 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-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05 Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard Review Date: 27/07/2017 IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Standards Track *Summary:* This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. *Comments:* The draft is well written and really clear to read, although contains some language which does not read as formally as I would expect from a standards track document, especially in the appendix. *Major Issues:* No major issues found. *Minor Issues:* No minor issues found. *Nits:* Section 2.2 "MUST act as if the all the Path" contains an extra "the". Section 2.3 "RSVP- TE control plane congestion" has an extra space after RSVP. Also, I'm not sure a sentence should start with "And". Section 2.3.2 "it is risky to assume" - would it be better to say MUST NOT assume, or SHOULD NOT assume? Appendix - after stating the default value, would help to separate the explanation using either a full stop or a new line. "sort of analogous", "same ballpark", "nicely matches up", "about 30 (31.5 to be precise)" seemed strange phrases to use and could be reworded to be more formal.