Reviewer: Joel Halpern 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. Document: draft-name-version.txt Reviewer: your-name Review Date: date IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: copy-from-I-D Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Major Comments: N/A Minor Comments: Reading section 3.1 on the rate for learning addresses, I am left guessing how the procedure is to be performed. The text references RFC 2889 section 5.8, but only for the meaning for the terms. The test procedure is clearly different since that test relies on observing flooding. As best I can guess, the test assumes that there is an observable (Netconf ? YANG ?) variable that reports how many local MAC addresses the device under test has learned. It would be good to be more explicit about that, if possible pointing to the YANG module that defines the parameter to be observed. A similar clarification would be helpful on section 3.2 (on control plane MAC learning). It probably would be helpful if sections 3.3 and 3.4 then referenced sections 3.1 and 3.2 respectively for what is being observed. This probably applies to section 4 as well. If the same variables are to be used, then a simple reference to the earlier description would seem to suffice. I believe that section 3.8 on high availability is intended to cause a switch of traffic path from DUT to MHPE2. However, the text in that section never refers to MHPE 2. It refers to switch of routing processor. It is possible that this is intended to be a redundancy test within DUT. If so, it would help to be more explicit, since as far as I know we do not standardize that behavior. I am left puzzled as to the need for MHPE2 in these tests. I assume there is some obvious and simple reason for including it that I missed. Could you add an explanation? Nits: At the end of section 2, the text reads "The X is used as variable..." Could you change that to "The X below is used as a variable ..."? I spent some time looking backwards for the X. The equation at the end of section 3.9 (ARD / ND scaling) is somewhat misleading. It uses the same v1, v2, ..vn in successive lines to implicitly refer to the IPv4 measurements and the IPv6 measurements. It would be good to name these separately, as obviously the same calculation can not produce two different results. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
