Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-12-12
Requested 2017-11-28
Authors Hao Weiguo, Li Yizhou, Muhammad Durrani, Sujay Gupta, Andrew Qu
Draft last updated 2017-12-11
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-10-genart-lc-dupont-2017-12-11
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-12-11


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-trill-centralized-replication-10.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20171209
IETF LC End Date: 20171212
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with Issues

Major issues: None

Minor issues: C-nickname is used before being defined

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - Abstract page 1: please expand the RPF abbrev

 - Abstract page 1 and 1 page 3: Mutlicast -> Multicast

 - ToC page 2 and 3 title page 5:
  Centralized Replication Solution Overview -> Centralized replication
  solution overview
  (mainly for consistency)

 - ToC page 2 and 6 title page 8: a edge group -> an edge group
  (It seems both are accepted?)

 - ToC page 2 and 9 title page 12: I have a little concern with the
  CMT abbrev which BTW is not in the RFC Editor list
  I suggest to add "(RFC 7783)" after CMT

 - ToC page 3 and 10 title page 13:
  Network Upgrade Analysis -> Network upgrade analysis
  (still consistency)

 - 1 page 3: at the first read it was not obvious that RBv is just the
  notation for a virtual RBridge. I suggest to do the same than for RBn,
  i.e., to change the first occurrence from RBv to (RBv).

 - 1 page 3: my US English spell checker does not accept learnt
  (it wants learned ???)

 - 2 page 4: please move from RFC 2119 to its update RFC 8174

 - 2 page 4: LAALP -Local -> LAALP - Local

 - 3 page 5 title: cf ToC comment

 - 3 page 5: " BUM packet should be..." an example of a lower case
  "should" which can take benefit of RFC 8174 (vs RFC 2119). Note
  there are two other "should"s next page and a "may" in 4 (and other
  lower case keywords).

 - 3 page 6: C-nickname is used without explanation of what it is
  (the explanation is in 9 page 12 so far later). Some words and/or
  a forward reference should solve the issue.

 - 8 page 11 (last line): nodes/ multiple -> nodes / multiple

 - 9 page 12 title: cf ToC comment

 - 9 page 12: CMT -> Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT)
  (at the first occurrence, i.e., first line after figure 2)

 - 9 page 12: the definition of C-nickname is here.
  BTW you use both C-flag and C-nickname flag, the second is not
  very correct from a language point of view but is very clear
  technically so I shan't object if you keep it.

 - 10 page 13 title: cf ToC comment

 - 11 page 13: psudo -> pseudo

 - Authors' Addresses page 17 (two occurrences): China -> PR China
  (or you can switch all countries to ISO IS 3166 two letter codes)