Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib-09

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:35:20 -0600

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib-09
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-01-2013
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Feb-07-2013

This document is ready as an Informational.

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 1

Nits: It is mentioned in Section 2 that, "The technology described in
this document has been subject to extensive simulation using real
network topologies and costs and pathological convergence behaviour."

If the simulations were published in an archival format conference
proceeding or if the results are publicly available elsewhere, it may
make sense to provide appropriate references.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:22:34 +0000

> make sense to provide appropriate references. 
Some elements are scattered though the IETF meeting archives as this
was discussed in the RTGWG meetings.

However some aspects are too sensitive to publish as we looked
at the expected behaviour on operational networks complete with
costs.

- Stewart

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:29:35 -0600

> at the expected behaviour on operational networks complete with

Stewart: Sure, I can understand the need for sensitivity.

Would be nice to have a canonical topology stripped of any sensitive
network configuration, but I realize that this is not a necessity nor
a prerequisite for moving the draft ahead.  That is why I indicated
this as a nit.

However, the engineer in me likes to see papers with results
that can easily be duplicated by others working in the domain.

That said, please move ahead with the draft from my end.  I have
no further comments.

Thanks,

- vijay