[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01.txt
Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org> Tue, 22 April 2014 23:50 UTC
Return-Path: <terry.manderson@icann.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA271A0283; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 ayHaaSMEtwlQ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org (expfe100-2.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F3C1A02A8; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-2.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.237]) with mapi; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:50:34 -0700
From: Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:50:31 -0700
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01.txt
Thread-Index: Ac9ehaXZyzfSm/bDRCa6qVIGjOtRLQ==
Message-ID: <CF7BE0E3.3061C%terry.manderson@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3481091431_52626586"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/xaJ8cJ7sl4TBCqVj7gt4T970dVY
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence.all@tools.ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:50:45 -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-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-01.txt Reviewer: Terry Manderson Review Date: 18/04/2014 IETF LC End Date: N/A - WG requested Routing Area Directorate review Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: This document is clearly written and for the most part easy to understand. The steps are enumerated, which is very helpful. I would have prefered to see the reference topology figures repeated closer to the test case where they are used, but this is a matter of style. Major Issues: No major issues found Minor Issues: Section 3 (figures 1-4): please define The Helper node (HLP) before its use. It is first defined in section 5.1.2 Section 4.5: Please clarify if the interface media types and throughput must all be exactly the same for all devices in all the test cases, or that the media types and throughput are to be the same for iterations of the test cases. I re-read that Para several times and could infer either situation. Section 4.10: Can you please highlight the impact on the tests for where routing processor redundancy cannot be disabled, or if unwilling to do that suggest that the impacts or assessment of impacts are out of scope of this draft. Section 5.: Point B. I assume you mean Hard Reset here. For understanding purposes you may like to consider adding the term in parenthesis. Section 5.1.1: Pont B introduces "peer x of Emulator". I find this wording terse, can you please clarify what this is as I couldn't see in the text of section 3. Point D: "peer-x" is used here. Is this the same term as point B? It appears as I read through the points, that Peer-X (possibly otherwise known as 'SOME_ASN-X) is the test case nomenclature representation of the emulator function. It may be worth stating that up front to be pragmatic and help the reader. Section 5.1.2: This section introduces a NTP time source to the test case, that isn't described in "Section 3. Test Topologies". While not a critical concern to someone implementing the topologies, it may help them by highlighting the necessity of NTP in section 3. Section 5.1.5 Is the omission of normative language in the points, specifically A,B, and C intentional? Section 5.5, Point B. The language here surrounding the time source is different than in earlier text, is that intentional? Nits: Section 1.1, Para 3: s/functional/functions/ Section 4.2, Para 1: s/or through neighbor/or through a neighbor/ Section 4.4, Para 3: s/a)default/a) default/ s/b)platform-specific/b) platform-specific/ s/c)values/c) values/ Section 4.6, Para 3: s/)is/) is/ Section 5.1.1, second last para: s/Stand Deviation/Standard Deviation/ Section 5.2.1, Point C. "Tx1", do you simply mean "Tx" as described in Figure 1? Point C. s/(Tx1)Interface/(Tx1) Interface/ Point E. s/Trr2/Tr2/ Point F. "(Drr1)" Can you clarify this is the intended nomenclature for this egress interface on the DUT? Section 5.3, Point E s/route say/route, say/ - I'd expect the RFC editor may suggest using "e.g". Section 5.6, Point B(6) s/(e.g. route A)/(e.g. routeA)/ - "RouteA" appears to be the selected form from earlier parts of the draft. (same for other occurrences in the remainder of the Draft (eg S5.8 point N,Q, .) Section 5.8. point F. s/Autonomous System.s/Autonomous Systems/ Section 5.8. Point S. s/Node -1/Node-1/ Cheers Terry
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basi… Terry Manderson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-… Bhavani Parise