Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-09 Reviewer: Andy Smith Review Date: 20 April 2023 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: Thank you for writing this document. This document is well written. I think that it is ready to be published, but there are a few points below that I would like to discuss for clarification. I also spotted a few nits that should be fixed at some point before publication. Comments and Questions: I would like to see some more detailed examples of capacity planning in TI-LFA environments. The document touches on this to some degree, but a few illustrations showing how to accommodate some topological scenarios - 'valley free' routing, dissimilar interface speeds, cases where ECMP isn't always feasible, etc would be helpful. Some topological case studies and the effect TI-LFA has on the network would be helpful to the operator when designing the network. Nits: - Avoid gratuitous promotional language (weasel words) like "Thanks to SR" --> not necessary - "it looks interesting to steer the traffic onto the post-convergence path" --> poor english - "w.r.t." --> this is used throughout the document, expand it to 'with regard to' or rework the sentence - "used by the repair path is recored" --> spelling error - Rework this sentence: "1 SID repair paths are sufficient to protect more than 99% of the prefix in almost all cases" should read: "1 SID repair path is sufficient to protect more than 99% of the prefixes in almost all cases" - "only 1 SID is needed to guarantee loop-freeness" --> Awkward use, is 'freeness' a word?
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
