I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call commentsyou may receive. Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05Reviewer:Ben CampbellReview Date: 2009-09-03 IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-04 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This document is mostly ready for publication as an informational RFC. There are a few nits and editorial issues that would be helpful to address first. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- Section 1, general: It would be helpful to have a paragraph describing the purpose of this document. Is it just to educate? Draw a conclusion? Help some audience make a decision? -- Paragraph 1: Please expand LDP on first use. -- Paragraph 3: Can you define "micro-loop"? (or contrast it with "loop") Please expand "TE" on first use. -- section 2, paragraph 1: "Cyclic loops may occur..." Are there non-cyclic loops? -- 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss" Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"? -- section 3, last paragraph: Please expand IGP on first use. -- section 4, 8th paragraph: "packet monitoring method, which detects that a packet is looping and drops it" s/", which"/"that" -- section 5.1: It's a bit odd to have a single subsection all by itself. -- section 5.1, second to last paragraph: Is there a reference for the simulations? Also, I would avoid all caps in "REDUCES" as all-caps is typically used for normative assertions. -- last paragraph: Can you describe more what you mean by "good-news" and "bad-news" events? I can guess, but it's better to be explicit. -- 6.1, first paragraph: s/"can be proved"/"can be proven" Also, is there a reference for such a proof? -- 6.3, 2nd paragraph: Confusing line break. Is it the "not-via" mechanism, or is a typo? Maybe quotes around "not-via" would help (or a space before the reference to move the line break.) 10, 4th paragraph: s/"…methods distributed…"/"…methods, distributed..." -- idnits reports the following: Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer? (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-03 _______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf