[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt
Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 21 April 2016 07:08 UTC
Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEFA12DF50; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 t8kEedaWUwAq; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B24112DC4A; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CIA88338; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 07:08:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:08:08 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.171]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:08:02 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt
Thread-Index: AdGbnIt+qe4n2mM9TPmH6skTMoVhLQ==
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 07:08:02 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28C1FA16B@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.57187C5A.00BA, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.171, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 317ed1a6d7a9ac88936217323668a88c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/u4zOMYYJrHAnTAmDJTQG_zztb50>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition.all@ietf.org>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 07:08:17 -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-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04.txt Reviewer: Mach Chen Review Date: April 21, 2016 IETF LC End Date: March 28, 2016 Intended Status: Informational Summary: This document is well written and easy to read. There some minor nits that need to be addressed before the publication. Comments: 1. There are many places in the document that uses "we", which is not the typical usage for an IETF draft or RFC, a common way is to use "this document" or the like. 2. Section 3.4 "... from the customer cone of the lateral peer.", what's the mean of the "customer cone" here? It's better to use a more common term here. 3. s/ No updates to the registries are suggested by this document. /This document does not require an action from IANA. Major issues: None. Minor issues: None. Nits: Thanks, Mach