[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09.txt

Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com> Mon, 11 June 2012 19:38 UTC

From: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
To: "draft-ietf-grow-simple-va.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-simple-va.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:37:50 -0400
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09.txt
Thread-Index: Ac1ICZj+aqpXkVFyRu+On8/htcBzeQ==
Message-ID: <25DC600D0CC1F2479C7053ADEB93004E699D6A6D95@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25DC600D0CC1F2479C7053ADEB93004E699D6A6D95EUSAACMS0703e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09.txt
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at  <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: June-11-2012
IETF LC End Date: June-12-2012
IESG Telechat date: June-21-2012

Summary:
This draft is almost ready to be published as Informational RFC but I do have some comments.

Minor issues:
-[Page 1], Abstract, not clear what is the simplification of S-VA in comparison to VA. Suggestion: a sentence or two in the abstract could clarify this
"In contracts to VA, S-VA reduces operational complexity by ..."

Nits/editorial comments:
-Consistency: [Page 4], 2nd to last paragraph: "core routers, to ABRs", expand "ABRs"-->"Area Border Routers (ABRs)"
-Consistency: [Page 4], 2nd to last paragraph: "to the ASBR routers", expand "ASBR"-->"to AS Border Routers (ASBRs)"
-Typo: [Page 5], Section 1: "rather then"--> "rather than"
-Clarity: [Page 5], Section 1, same sentence as above typo, add commas after "can" and "RIB":
"In configurations where BGP routes are used to resolve other routes
or where BGP routes are redistributed to other protocols which both
happen via RIB simple-va can[,] rather then suppressing routes before
they are installed in global RIB[,] flag them as "suppress eligible".
"
-Consistency: Perhaps run over draft and change all: "loc-RIB"-->"Loc-RIB"
-Consistency: Perhaps run over draft and change all: "simple-va"-->"S-VA"
-Clarity: [Page 6],"product of SPF"-->"product of Shortest Path First (SPF)"
-Clarity: [Page 6],Section 2, last paragraph: "scenarios for S-VA - "-->"scenarios for S-VA : "
-Consistency: [Page 7], Figure should have a caption (and last paragraph p.7 should refer to Figure 1)
-Consistency: [Page 7]&[Page 8], spell out EP and EBGP when first use.
-Clarity: [Page 8] paragraph 1, "suppression routes"-->"suppression of all routes"
-Clarity: [Page 8],last paragraph: "needs to pointed"-->"needs to be pointed"
-Typo: [Page 8],last sentence: "more then"-->"more than"
-Clarity: [Page 8][Page 9], point form after "the following solutions could be considered:", it is not clear what is a title, what is the explanation.
Please correct this.(Suggestion, perhaps use ":" after the title, before the explanation.)
-Typo: [Page 9], "etc .."--> "etc."


Thanks,
Meral

---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Meral Shirazipour