Reviewer: Pascal Thubert Review result: Ready with Issues I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases (05). These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>." For non-INT Area document, the reviewer must give a recommendation as to how the INT ADs are to complete the ballot on the document and the reason for that recommendation. I believe that the document is very well written and highly readable. My comments may be seen as a matter of taste and ignored, or/and be considered out of scope. My main concern is that despite a "Routing Impacts" subsection in all main groups of use cases, there's no text on the scope of routing impact. - Is the impact local like FRR in which case it can be understood? - Or is it more global in which cases the impact is harder to assess in advance? - flows may be rerouted paths that are loaded differently from the original, meaning that there's a measurable impact at the time of the switch, for the better or the worse - How, when can the impact be gradual? - Is the impact a complete reroute of the flow or a variation of the load balancing? Background fo rthe questions: Rick and myself have a strong RAW background. Contrary to the examples given (and the WG ovbjectives), RAW is reactive (OAM based); but once a decision is made, it seems that the RAW methods are applicable in certain listed use cases and may provide a smpooth solution to the local TVR use cases. Related comment is that the "Routing Impacts" subsections are not comparable from one use case to the other. Again I'd have loved comparable items like the above to be discussed so we figure if we are looking for common or separate solutions. Secondary, on : "To the extent that the relative mobility between and among nodes in the network can be understood in advance, the associated loss and establishment of adjacencies can also be planned for." This is clearly discussing radios. Most radios use cases depend not only on the relative position, but also the rest of the environment that may obstruct and / or interfere with the signal. Suggestion: "To the extent that the relative mobility between and among nodes in the network and the impacts of the environment on the signal propagation can be understood in advance, the associated loss and establishment of adjacencies can also be planned for." Many thanks again for this document, great and informational read -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
