Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07

Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Mon, 04 December 2017 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EE4128D69; Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:23:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.66.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151242978555.13727.1858755965278027482@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:23:05 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/ItwWplBKRAE8YDI8Gaj89b0ErF8>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 23:23:06 -0000

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-vrrp-07
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2017-12-04
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-12
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-11

Summary:

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: It would be helpful to add description on why you need
both Tracking Interface and Tracking network. Both of them have the same
description "to detect interface connectivity failures".  What kind of
"connectivity failures" will be reported over the "Tracking Interface"? what
connectivity failures will be reported to "Tracking Network"?

Thanks, Linda Dunbar