Reviewer: Michael Richardson Review result: Has Nits To: rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx Cc: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx, draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework.all@xxxxxxxx, mpls@xxxxxxxx Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-06 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-mpls-sfl-framework Reviewer: Michael Richardson Review Date: 2020-01-05 IETF LC End Date: unknown Intended Status: Informational Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This document is clearly written and easy to understand. I would have preferred to have a stronger link back to the requirements given in RFC8372. I see how no significant data-plane changes are required on intermediate routers. It would be nice to be sure that they are also minimized at the edges. Are current OAM mechanisms able to obtain sufficient granalarity in latency to collect the right data? Given that no IANA actions are required, and no mechanisms are described to collect the data, or allocate the SFLs, I understand why this is an Informational document. I don't see how it will contribute to better interoperation. Do we even need to publish this? Major Issues: No major issues found Minor Issues: section 3: "By some method outside the scope of this text, two labels" It seems that there might be significant operational and/or privacy issues with this assumption. It would be good if the reader had some idea of where to look for a protocol which would be easily adapted to this need. Nits: I think that starting the abstract with [RFCxxxx] may not be accepted by the RFC-editor. Maybe a single sentence summary is needed. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
