Subject: [Rift] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03

From: Mike McBride via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 20:36:25 -0800

Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review result: Not Ready

Document: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review Date: 1/10/2021
Intended Status: Informational
Review result: Has Issues

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.

Summary: Helpful informational document which has issues to be addressed before
wglc.

Concerns:
-It could be helpful to give a brief description of why RIFT should not be used
in traditional, non Clos, Fat Tree environments to help in understanding the
applicability. -Unless it's not the intention of the draft to do so, the
benefits of RIFT need to be more clearly described. Perhaps just add a sentence
or two to each of the listed benefits. Or don't list all of the benefits and
punt to the RIFT document. -The Clos, Fat Trees concepts, and *many* acronyms,
should be simply and clearly defined (or referenced) even with assuming the
reader is familiar with the terms and concepts. Punting is not good here.
-Where's the security section?

Nits:
-"There are a bunch of more advantages...". Remove bunch: "There are more
advantages...". -"RIFT is largely driven by demands...". What kind of demands?
Perhaps add "traffic" or "bandwidth".

thanks, just about there!
mike