Authors, I have been asked to do a Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-rtwg-uloop-delay-02.txt
Summary: The rationale for this document is clear and the mechanism seems reasonably straight forward. However, one major comment that I have is that the English grammar is poor in some sections, and it is missing normal English articles in some places (a, an, the,…), making it hard to read. I would suggest that the authors go through the draft with a native English speaker to help resolve these nits. Comments: Minor Issues: Section 2.1 Fast reroute unefficiency s/unefficiency/inefficiency Section 4.1 Definitions, 2nd bullet: …by incrementing the timer vape when the IGP is instable. s/instable/unstable 4.3 Local Events The draft states that it assumes that only a single link failure has been seen by the IGP area. However, its not clear how you distinguish a single local failure from consecutive (non-simultaneous) failure that occurs within a given short timespan e.g. during the initial re-convergence period. It would help to clarify this. Regards Matthew
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
