[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0454F1B2D5D; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rbkc1xTemhaW; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C5601B2D58; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BYE89088; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:27:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:27:09 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA507-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.188]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:27:05 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt
Thread-Index: AdD7YVzkrOA/z5R9SdCD48fK3tIpww==
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:27:04 +0000
Message-ID: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551BC215F@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.57.113.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551BC215Fszxema507mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/26ul-JJ8TTQEgQgxOA01UlRXMSA>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.all@tools.ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:27:17 -0000

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. 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-pals-redundancy-spe-02.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: 30 September 2015
IETF LC End Date:  ?
Intended Status: Standards Track

S Summary:
I have no major concern about this document to go for publication. But a minor comment below is better to be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand.


Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
Section 3.1 : Operations of Scenario 1
First paragraph "T-PE2 and T-PE3 would advertise Active and Standby preferential status bit to S-PE1 respectively,...."
Second paragraph "T-PE3 then advertises Active Preferential Status to S-PE1, "

I guess it is typo. Should be "Preferential Forwarding status" instead of "preferential status", isn't it?




B.R.
Jia