[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Mon, 21 May 2018 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C1212D88E; Mon, 21 May 2018 15:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, sfc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152694106121.7908.13286903159935171274@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:17:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/pc4p8rhjR9DN-qjVTuQJ7D8fF8c>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 21 May 2018 22:17:41 -0000

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Issues


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

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
 that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating
 the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 05-21-2018
Intended status: Informational


I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and
clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful. The draft presents some
minor issues that I think should be resolved before publication.


Major Issues: No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

- It would be nice to add a terminology section that references section 1.4 of
rfc7665, section 1.3 of rfc8300 (since you are using NSH-aware defined there)
and add definitions such as IBN. - Question: about this sentence in pag. 3:
"...The "domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under the
   control of a single organization...". Is it the same if we say "...The
   "SFC-Enabled Domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under the
   control of a single organization ..."?
-- It would be nice to expand NSH in the Introduction section.
-- In Figure 1, it would be nice to add a number to the Classifiers, e.g.CF#1,
then when you mention that in the text you can reference it, e.g. "One path is
shown from edge classifier (CF#1) to SFF1 to Sub-domain#1..." -- In Figure 6,
it would be nice to add in the legend section the meaning for DPI.