Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa, 

Thanks for your review. See one inline. 

> On Oct 7, 2023, at 12:31, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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 https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-lsr-isis-fast-flooding (the current version is -05)
> Reviewer: Loa Andersson
> Review Date: 2023-10-08
> IETF LC End Date:
> Intended Status: Experimental
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document is basically ready for publication; I only found one issue - the number of authors listed.
> 
> Document Overview:
> Current Link State Protocol Data Unit (PDU) flooding rates are much slower than what modern networks can support.  The use of IS-IS at larger scale requires faster flooding rates to achieve desired convergence goals.  This document discusses the need for faster flooding, the issues around faster flooding, and some example approaches to achieve faster flooding.  It also defines protocol extensions relevant to faster flooding.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> The draft is well-written and easy to read. I gone over the IANA Considerations and allocations, and not found anything that need to be addressed.
> 
> Major Issues:
> 
> Number of authors: There are 7 authors, that is more the the "allowed" 5 authors.
> 
> I have no background why there 7 authors listed, this has to be addressed in some way:
> 
> - reduce the number of authors to five
> 
> - keep the number of authors at seven, and the Shepherd will have to
>   address this in the SWU,
> 
> I have put this as a "major issue" since I don't know where to put it.
> 
> My personal opinion is that anyone that has contributed text to the document, and participated in the authors discussions, should be listed as an author.

Agreed. Note that there were substantially more participating authors on the drafts that were merged into this one. Here is what I wrote for the Shepherd’s report:
      Since the document was the result of separate efforts by three different
     parties, the author list is greater than five. After efforts to identify
     contributions of the co-authors, the author list has been reduced to seven.
     The list of final authors and their contribution is listed below: 

   Bruno Decraene - One of the primary authors of the final document and of one
                    of the documents that was merged.
   Les Ginsberg - One of the primary authors of the final document and of one of 
                  the documents that was merged. 
   Tony Li - Author of the final document and one of the primary author of the
             merged document. 
   Guillaume Solignac - Author of one of the merged documents. Primary developer
                        and performance tester for Orange implementation of 
                        IS-IS extensions. Co-author of final document. 
   Marek Karasek - Author on one of the merged documents. Primary developer and
                   performance tester for the Cisco implementation of the 
                   IS-IS extensions. Co-author of final document.
   Gunter Van de Velde - Author on final document. Reviewer and interface to
                         Nokia IS-IS development. 
   Tony Przygienda - Author of one of the merged documents. Author of final 
                     document. Interface to Juniper IS-IS development.    


> 
> "No minor issues found."
> 
> Nits:
> 
> The nits-tool only finds a  Miscellaneous warning:
> 
> -- The document date (5 September 2023) is 32 days in the past.  Is this
>     intentional?
> 
> This warning is a bit annoying since it is impossible to avoid.
> 
> I have not found any other nits.

Thanks - As shepherd, I’ve also reviewed the document several times and I'am glad that we have fixed the nits. 


Acee



> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> -- 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]