Draft: draft-ietf-mpls-bgp-mpls-restart-04.txt Reviewer: john.loughney@nokia.com Review Date: Wednesday 7/20/2005 1:52 AM CST Telechat Date: 21 July 2005 Summary: Editorial nits and issues. Review: ------- I believe this document needs at least an editorial revision before it is ready for publication. The nit-checker found lots of problems (see attached). Additionally, I found the draft difficult to read and parse. This draft is a standards track, but it doesn't really clearly state what someone needs to implement. It seems much more like operational guidence. I'm happy to work with the authors to clear any of the points raised in the draft, if needed. More specific comments: 1) Abstract reads more like an introduction, and there is no introduction. I'd suggest writing a shorter abstract, and leaving the current abstract as an introduction would be a good thing. Note that the current abstract has references, which abstracts generally should not. Plus, the abstract is 4 paragraphs long, which seems a bit much for an abstract. 2) The Motivation section seems to be introductory material and I don't quite see the motivation for this mechanism. Perhaps the section should be renamed. I don't think that the document requires a Motivation section, but some text on why a 'graceful restart mechanism for BGP with MPLS' is a good thing to have would be nice. 3) I had a hard time parsing the first paragraph of the motivation. It seems that you are trying to define what you mean by "MPLS forwarding state" - maybe more clearly stated or presented in such a way that its clearer - I was thinking of something like a bulleted list. 4) The last paragraph of section 1 says: "The mechanism described in this document is applicable to all LSRs, both those with the ability to preserve forwarding state during BGP restart and those without ..." -> however, you mention that it only minimizes the impact of the control plane restart if their neighbors are capable of preserving state. What happens if they are not capable? Does this mechanism, then bring any benefit? 5) Security Consideration says: The security considerations pertaining to the original BGP protocol remain relevant. -> I think a reference would be needed to the correct document where I could find the security considerations to BGP would be needed.