[RTG-DIR] RrgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-implementation-00.txt
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 07 May 2015 07:57 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@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 630E31B2CF7; Thu, 7 May 2015 00:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 BaOppCxiwjpj; Thu, 7 May 2015 00:57:40 -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 6D4761B2CC4; Thu, 7 May 2015 00:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BSF82722; Thu, 07 May 2015 07:57:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 7 May 2015 08:57:37 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.219]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 7 May 2015 15:52:33 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RrgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-implementation-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdCImsZAZM/k9LrTQkOD8zJmEbUAIw==
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 07:52:33 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B4273EA@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/J2rMclkxEwjQJm9VkNGWNTNfThc>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-implementation.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-implementation.all@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RrgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-implementation-00.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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 07 May 2015 07:57:41 -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, 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 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-idr-add-paths-implementation-00.txt Reviewer: Mach Chen Review Date: 2015/05/07 IETF LC End Date: Not known Intended Status: Informational Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: The document is well written and easy to read. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: Running idnits tool, found the following nits: == Missing Reference: 'RFC4724' is mentioned on line 592, but not defined Abstract and Introduction s/The survey had 22 questions.../The survey had 20 questions... s/The ADD-PATH implementation survey had 22 detailed questions.../ The ADD-PATH implementation survey had 20 detailed questions Section 3.1 "..they don't implement any advertisement of routes." I guess you want to say they don't implement any advertisement of ADD-PATH routes. Best regards, Mach