Hello, 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. Document: draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-13  Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro  Review Date: April 25, 2016 Intended Status: Proposed Standard https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths/ Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This is an extremely well written document, very focused and with high SNR. I have a couple totally-non-critical comments and questions below. Major Issues: None. Minor Issues: I have a couple of questions rather than issues: 2.  How to Identify a Path ...    A BGP    speaker that receives a route SHOULD NOT assume that the identifier    carries any particular semantics; it SHOULD be treated as an opaque    value. I was thinking about why “SHOULD NOT” and not “MUST NOT”, and I understand future proofing, but wondering if there’s another reason. The path identifier has well-defined semantics: make a path unique for a given prefix, or make the {identifier; prefix} specify a path among many. Does this sentence intend to specify that a BGP receiving a route SHOULD NOT assume particular semantics of the numerical value of the field? (such as the lower value means a more important route), or SHOULD NOT assume particular semantics of the structure of the field? (such as some hierarchy, or MSB with some meaning). Or both? Maybe, “… assume that the value or structure of the identifier carries …”?  Or maybe it is OK as is and I am reading too much into it? 6.  Applications    The BGP extension specified in this document can be used by a BGP    speaker to advertise multiple paths in certain applications.  The    availability of the additional paths can help reduce or eliminate    persistent route oscillations [RFC3345].  It can also help with    optimal routing and routing convergence in a network.  The    applications are detailed in separate documents. The final sentence does not seem to add anything, other than questions. I’d suggest either adding pointers to those separate documents, or removing the sentence. This is a non-normative section. 7.  Deployment Considerations    The extension proposed in this document provides a mechanism for a    BGP speaker to advertise multiple paths over a BGP session.  Care    needs to be taken in its deployment to ensure consistent routing and    forwarding in a network, the details of which will be described in    separate application documents. Similarly, which documents? These seem like important considerations. Nits: 4.  ADD-PATH Capability    The ADD-PATH Capability is a new BGP capability [RFC5492].  The    Capability Code for this capability is specified in the IANA    Considerations section of this document. Why not say "The ADD-PATH Capability is a new BGP capability [RFC5492], with Capability Code of 69” and simplify it for the reader? 9.  Security Considerations ...   The use of the ADD-PATH Capability is intended to    address specific needs related to, for example, eliminating the MED-    induced route oscillations in a network    [I-D.ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop].  While the applications for    the ADD-PATH Capability are outside the scope of this document, the    users are encouraged to examine their behavior and potential impact    by studying the best practices described in    [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines]. Are these Security Considerations, Applications, or Deployment Considerations? I hope these help, — Carlos.