Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: 2024-02-28 IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-29 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document outlines the limitations of current Link State Protocol Data Unit (PDU) flooding rates within the IS-IS protocol and highlights the need for faster flooding to meet the objectives of modern networks. It addresses the challenges associated with this requirement, provides examples, and defines protocol extensions relevant to enhancing flooding speeds. The document is well-written. My minor comments are detailed below. Major issues: None Minor issues: 1- In Section 6.2.4, the term 'relatively static parameters' is introduced to describe the operational behavior of flooding parameters within the IS-IS protocol. Could you please clarify the criteria or conditions under which these parameters are considered relatively static, I mean which are the criteria or conditions that define these parameters as relatively static? 2- How do the pacing and rate-limiting mechanisms affect the IS-IS protocol's efficiency in detecting and responding to lost LSPs, considering the potential for fast loss detection provided by ordered acknowledgments? Nits/editorial comments: 3- Should "today" be replaced with something like "at the moment of writing this specification". Or, since "today" is mentioned several times in the text, should a clarification be added at the first instance, example: today --> today (at the moment of writing this specification). ? 4- In Section 6.2.2.1 "...fast rates in short periods of time..." --> it would be nice to add an example, e.g.: "... fast rates in short periods of time (For example, 12 LSPs in 20ms) ". What do you think ? Thanks for this document, Ines -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
