Document: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review Date: 1/10/2021
Intended Status: Informational
Review result: Has Issues

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.

Summary: Helpful informational document which has issues to be addressed before wglc.

Concerns:  
-It could be helpful to give a brief description of why RIFT should not be used in traditional, non Clos, Fat Tree environments to help in understanding the applicability.
-Unless it's not the intention of the draft to do so, the benefits of RIFT need to be more clearly described. Perhaps just add a sentence or two to each of the listed benefits. Or don't list all of the benefits and punt to the RIFT document.
-The Clos, Fat Trees concepts, and *many* acronyms, should be simply and clearly defined (or referenced) even with assuming the reader is familiar with the terms and concepts. Punting is not good here.
-Where's the security section? 

Nits:  
-"There are a bunch of more advantages...". Remove bunch: "There are more advantages...".
-"RIFT is largely driven by demands...". What kind of demands? Perhaps add "traffic" or "bandwidth".

thanks, just about there!
mike