RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt

Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mon, 17 December 2018 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3D7129C6A; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:13:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d-ua3Npvo4A0; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09563128BCC; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:13:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.86.153]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id wBH9DhVL019054; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900
Received: from vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36136EA813B; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900 (JST)
Received: from jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.87.134]) by vc1.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4C9EA8121; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [129.60.13.98]) by jcms-pop21.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2680D4007FE; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:43 +0900 (JST)
From: Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
Message-ID: <1ebfd8bb-20df-b469-4806-7d8b305d2e20@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 18:13:26 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CC-Mail-RelayStamp: 1
To: rtg-ads@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/TmXhQ-rQEiSTIBI3At3eCGmZYbs>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 17 Dec 2018 09:13:50 -0000

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-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08.txt
  Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
  Review Date: Dec. 17th, 2018
  IETF LC End Date: Dec. 18th, 2018
  Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This document analyzes the impact of SPF delay algorithm and associated 
triggers on IGP micro-loops. This document presents useful information 
on how mixing strategies may lead to longer micro-loops. The document is 
well organized, easy to read.

Major Issues:
None

Minor Issues:
None

Nits:
1) Section 2 says

   "That part may be the main part for the first iteration but is not for
    subsequent IGP events.  In addition, this part is very implementation
    specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay
    algorithm may be standardized."

It would be better to explain what "That part" and "this part" mean.
I guess the text should look like:

   "The time to update the FIB may be the main part for the first
    iteration of IGP event but is not for subsequent IGP events.
    In addition, the time to update the FIB is very implementation
    specific and difficult/impossible to standardize, while the SPF delay
    algorithm may be standardized."


Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda