Hi Ines, Thank you for the review (Apologies for the delay to reply to this review). All your comments were taken into account. Please the new version at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical/ Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Ines Robles [mailto:mariainesrobles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : mardi 22 mai 2018 00:18 > À : rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc : draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; sfc@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08 > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Has Issues > > 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 > 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-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08 > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review Date: 05-21-2018 > Intended status: Informational > > Summary: > > I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and > clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful. The draft presents > some > minor issues that I think should be resolved before publication. > > Comments: > > Major Issues: No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > - It would be nice to add a terminology section that references section 1.4 > of > rfc7665, section 1.3 of rfc8300 (since you are using NSH-aware defined there) > and add definitions such as IBN. - Question: about this sentence in pag. 3: > "...The "domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under the > control of a single organization...". Is it the same if we say "...The > "SFC-Enabled Domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under > the > control of a single organization ..."? > Nits: > -- It would be nice to expand NSH in the Introduction section. > -- In Figure 1, it would be nice to add a number to the Classifiers, > e.g.CF#1, > then when you mention that in the text you can reference it, e.g. "One path > is > shown from edge classifier (CF#1) to SFF1 to Sub-domain#1..." -- In Figure 6, > it would be nice to add in the legend section the meaning for DPI. > > Thanks, > > Ines.
