Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins Review result: Has Nits Hello
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02. 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. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02.txt Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins Review Date: 1st March 2023 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. The document is well written and understandable. I have two minor comments that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG. 1) Section 1.1 bullet 3 states “Appendices describing operation over legacy technologies (FDDI, Token Ring, and ATM LAN Emulation) were removed.” however the diagrams in Section 4.1 & 4.2 include “Ethernet, Token Ring, or FDDI”. Should the reference to Token Ring & FDDI be also removed from those diagrams? 2) Section 4.2 states: “In the IPv4 example above, i.e., IPvX is IPv4 everywhere in the figure, half of the hosts have configured a static default route through Router-1's IPv4 A, and half are using Router-2's IPv4 B.” (and has similar text in the next paragraph for IPv6), however the diagram shows all hosts with “Default Router IPvX Addresses” of IPvX A, whereas I think the diagram should be showing two of the four hosts with “Default Router IPvX Addresses” of IPvX A and the other two with “Default Router IPvX Addresses” of IPvX B? Regards Ben _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
