Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05-rtgdir-lc-pritchard-2017-07-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-07-28
Requested 2017-07-10
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Vishnu Beeram, Ina Minei, Rob Shakir, Dante Pacella, Tarek Saad
Draft last updated 2017-07-27
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Victoria Pritchard (diff)
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)
Comments
Review in preparation for IETF Last Call.
Assignment Reviewer Victoria Pritchard
State Completed
Review review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05-rtgdir-lc-pritchard-2017-07-27
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-07-27

Review
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05-rtgdir-lc-pritchard-2017-07-27

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 ‚Äčhttp://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.