Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-06

From: Michael Richardson via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 08:49:28 -0800

Reviewer: Michael Richardson
Review result: Has Nits

To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
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.