Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05
Reviewer:
Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-09-03

IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-04

IESG Telechat date: (if known)


Summary: This document is mostly ready for publication as an  
informational RFC. There are a few nits and editorial issues that  
would be helpful to address first.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Section 1, general:

It would be helpful to have a paragraph describing the purpose of this  
document. Is it just to educate? Draw a conclusion? Help some audience  
make a decision?

-- Paragraph 1:

Please expand LDP on first use.

-- Paragraph 3:

Can you define "micro-loop"? (or contrast it with "loop")

Please expand "TE" on first use.

-- section 2, paragraph 1: "Cyclic loops may occur..."

Are there non-cyclic loops?

-- 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss"

Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"?

-- section 3, last paragraph:

Please expand IGP on first use.

-- section 4, 8th paragraph: "packet monitoring method, which
    detects that a packet is looping and drops it"

s/", which"/"that"

-- section 5.1: It's a bit odd to have a single subsection all by  
itself.

-- section 5.1, second to last paragraph:

Is there a reference for the simulations? Also, I would avoid all caps  
in "REDUCES" as all-caps is typically used for normative assertions.

-- last paragraph:

Can you describe more what you mean by "good-news" and "bad-news"  
events? I can guess, but it's better to be explicit.

-- 6.1, first paragraph:

s/"can be proved"/"can be proven"

Also, is there a reference for such a proof?

-- 6.3, 2nd paragraph:

Confusing line break. Is it the "not-via" mechanism, or is a typo?  
Maybe quotes around "not-via" would help (or a space before the  
reference to move the line break.)

10, 4th paragraph:

s/"…methods distributed…"/"…methods, distributed..."

-- idnits reports the following:

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work,  
but was
      first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the  
disclaimer?
      (See the Legal Provisions document at
      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).


   Checking references for intended status: Informational
    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
      draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-03