Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review result: Has Nits 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 https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-rift-rift-20 (the current version is -20) Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2024-03-19 IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication (with nits) ; though I found it a bit hard to read. - at least for me the appendixes contain info that was useful when it came to understand the document. This could be mentioned early in the document. Admittedly the Readers Digest does a good work, but it is quite a bit into the document. Document Overview: This document defines a routing protocol for Clos and fat tree network topologies optimized towards control plane state efficiency and a minimum of configuration and operational complexity. Note: One have to get far into the document (even into appindixes) before you understand the specification of that protocol Comments: The draft is long (189 pages), and it takes time to get through all the details. That said the authors does a good job, it is more that the topic is new and fairly complicated. Especially the "Readers Disgest" section is useful and I had to return to it serval times, Major Issues: None Minor Issues Abstract The abstract of a bit thin, I can't really get what it is asll about from just reading the abstract, and that it what is there for, right? Nits: There is a long list of nits found by the nits-tool (not running verbose), please fix those! In the abstract you say "clos and fat tree topologies", in the the Terminology section you say "This document uses the terms Clos and Fat Tree interchangeably". Should the abstract asy "clos or fat tree topologies"? Caveat: This is a grammar comment and I do not normally make grammar comments :)! You mixed "terms" and "abbreviations", have concidered two lists? In section 5.3.1 you use "acronym", I think the preferred word is "abbreviation". All acronyms are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are acronyms. One question on the policy defintion in the IANA registries, can you have a reference to an Appendix in the IANA registry? I have not found any other nits. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxx Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@xxxxxxxxx Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
