[RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03.txt

Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com> Sat, 29 April 2017 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A001294DF; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 07:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gA81FVeDCZwy; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 07:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw030.noc.ntt.com (mgw030.noc.ntt.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92B312947D; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c0043i0.coe.ntt.com (c0043i0.nc.agilit-hosting.com []) by mgw030.noc.ntt.com (NTT Com MailSV) with ESMTP id 66FC81C58950; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:10:40 +0900 (JST)
Received: from C0147I0.coe.ntt.com ( by c0043i0.coe.ntt.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.339.0; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:10:40 +0900
Received: from C0561I0.coe.ntt.com ([]) by C0147I0.coe.ntt.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:10:39 +0900
From: Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
To: "'rtg-ads@ietf.org'" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "'rtg-dir@ietf.org'" <'rtg-dir@ietf.org'>, "'draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RTG-DIR QA review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03.txt
Thread-Index: AdLA7qLGXj0F8yDgRaK42VOyHjaunA==
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:10:38 +0000
Message-ID: <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A8673D7D9@C0561I0.coe.ntt.com>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
x-ccmail-original-to: rtg-ads@ietf.org
x-ccmail-original-cc: 'rtg-dir@ietf.org', draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/b7JF4gF_LHdpFkXclZ82ljzdeOc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 May 2017 01:17:05 -0700
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:11:09 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for this draft.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-03.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: April 29, 2017
Intended Status: Standards Track

Here are my comments.

Overall, the document is well organized and clear about problem statement and analysis of SPF triggers and SPF delays impact on micro-loops.

Some specific comments.

1) The document is intended to be Standards Track. I do not think it is common for such analysis document to be Standards Track.

2) Just a nits, but in page 12, it says "In the figure 5", but it seems figures are not numbered.

3) In Section 4.2. Exponential backoff, it is not clear what is a condition (or conditions) to move from FM to BM.

Tomonori Takeda