RtgDir review : draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator

--===============8702752953829306506==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114409801562230528312d15

--001a114409801562230528312d15
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-01.txt
Reviewer: Manav Bhatia
Review Date: 2015-12-31
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Proposed Standard (ID says Standards track)

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

Comments:

I have issues in general readability of the draft. There were parts that
were not very clear but that could also be because i am not very conversant
with L2TP.

Major Issues:

1. The document describes how one or more than one S-BFD descriminator can
be advertised using L2TPv3 AVP. The draft when originally written was
inline with the popular idea then, that a node MAY want to advertise more
than one S-BFD descriminator. This idea however, is losing currency since
the reason that necessitated this capability is now being questioned. Given
this, the authors might need to rewrite sections of this draft, if the
consensus is to remove the notion of advertising multiple discriminators.

Minor Issues:

1. Most of the acroynms have not been expanded and referenced.

2. The figure in the draft is not clear. I dont even want to guess how that
needs to be interpreted.

Cheers, Manav

--001a114409801562230528312d15
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hello,<br><br>I have been selected as the Routing Director=
ate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all ro=
uting or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IES=
G review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to=
 provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Rout=
ing Directorate, please see =C2=A0<a href=3D"http://trac.tools.ietf.org/are=
a/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDi=
r</a><br><br>Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routi=
ng 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 throu=
gh discussion or by updating the draft.<br><br>Document: draft-ietf-l2tpext=
-sbfd-discriminator-01.txt<br>Reviewer: Manav Bhatia<br>Review Date: 2015-1=
2-31<br>IETF LC End Date: date-if-known<br>Intended Status: Proposed Standa=
rd (ID says Standards track)<br><br>Summary:<br><br>I have some minor conce=
rns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.=
<br><div><br></div><div>Comments:</div><div><br></div><div>I have issues in=
 general readability of the draft. There were parts that were not very clea=
r but that could also be because i am not very conversant with L2TP.=C2=A0<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Major Issues:</div><div><br></div><div><div>1. The=
 document describes how one or more than one S-BFD descriminator can be adv=
ertised using L2TPv3 AVP. The draft when originally written was inline with=
 the popular idea then, that a node MAY want to advertise more than one S-B=
FD descriminator. This idea however, is losing currency since the reason th=
at necessitated this capability is now being questioned. Given this, the au=
thors might need to rewrite sections of this draft, if the consensus is to =
remove the notion of advertising multiple discriminators.</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>Minor Issues:<br></div></div><div><br></div><div><div>1. Most of th=
e acroynms have not been expanded and referenced.</div></div><div><br></div=
><div>2. The figure in the draft is not clear. I dont even want to guess ho=
w that needs to be interpreted.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers, Manav</div=
></div>

--001a114409801562230528312d15--


--===============8702752953829306506==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext

--===============8702752953829306506==--