[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
Ines Robles <email@example.com> Mon, 21 May 2018 22:17 UTC
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)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Ines Robles <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:17:41 -0700
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 22:17:41 -0000
Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Has Issues 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-sfc-hierarchical-08 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: 05-21-2018 Intended status: Informational Summary: 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. Comments: 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 ..."? Nits: -- 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. Thanks, Ines.
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-... Ines Robles
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-... mohamed.boucadair
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf... Ines Robles