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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

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.

"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.


/Loa


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