[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Mon, 12 September 2016 12:05 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:05:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CANK0pbZbZ6ja_F=x91wz4wZ6nd+4as6oX26kE3V5ekopjO9Bpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11432270eb7c47053c4e50de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/QU_pnm_plXiQhBSwDE4tHgTGu5w>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07
Precedence: list

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-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07
Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli
Review Date: Sept. 12th 2016
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

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

Comments:

This document is clearly written and easy to understand.
I am not a BGP specialist, and in particular I was not familiar with the
details of BGP Graceful restart before I have reviewed, so I had to go back
and read RFC4724.
It may mean that my review is not sufficiently in-depth, or that the nits I
point out and my editorial suggestions may be too pedantic.


Major Issues:
No major issues found.


Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.


Nits:

Nits and minor suggestions below can be considered, aiming to improve
readability.

Working group indication:
 - indicate IDR working group at the top of the document (for now it says
"Network working group")

Abstract:
 - for clarity, append at the end of last sentence "and for force a full
reset"?

Section 2
 - in restart flags, for completeness, recall that R flag is specified in
RFC4724 and what it indicates.
 - recall that reserved/unspecified fields must be zeroed (and ignored)?
 - spell out acronyms AFI and SAFI (in terminology section, as coming from
RFC4724?) before first use in the document
 - in Address family flags: remove "deprecated" specification text


 Section 4:
 - "When a BGP speaker resets its session due to a HOLDTIME expiry, it
should generate..."
  => s/should/SHOULD


 Section 4.1:
 - the last paragraph of section 4.2 of RFC4724 states that support for the
stale route retain timer is a MAY.
 It seems appropriate to specify upfront that this timer is now a MUST?

 - "This supersedes the "consecutive restarts" requirement of [RFC4724] S.
4.2."
 => for convenience indicate which paragraph (3rd paragraph) of RFC4724 S.
4.2.

[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-no… Emmanuel Baccelli
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-g… Susan Hares
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-g… John G. Scudder
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-g… Emmanuel Baccelli
Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-g… John G. Scudder