[Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-13

Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 05 June 2023 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BEA7C152F19; Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 10.5.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <168598569343.13872.11493389117456342412@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 10:21:33 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/EfFCRl3kfLBTJ4Tyqc_tjz4c0Pk>
Subject: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-13
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:21:33 -0000

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Ready

The document is written in a clear and concise manner.
The authors have done an excellent job of making a difficult subject clear and
readable.

Two technical sections should be checked against implementations of IS-IS with
dense flooding (section 6.6.2.1 and section 6.6.2.2.  I am not implementing so
this check is beyond my capabilities.

Editorial nit:
section 3, requirement 3, sentence 2.  "Just addressing a complete bipartite
topology such as K5, 8 is insufficient."  An informative reference to K5,8 or a
bipartite topology might be helpful to readers.  This is an optional editorial
comment.