Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03-rtgdir-lc-qu-2024-02-17-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-02-14 | |
Requested | 2024-02-01 | |
Requested by | Andrew Alston | |
Authors | IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Syed Kamran Raza , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Arkadiy Gulko | |
I-D last updated | 2024-02-17 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -03
by Yingzhen Qu
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Gyan Mishra (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Yingzhen Qu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/S9Vwy0iHJVVjtFCx0_VO71i3rA0 | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2024-02-17 |
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03-rtgdir-lc-qu-2024-02-17-00
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 https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03 Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu Review Date: 17 Feb 2024 IETF LC End Date: n/a Intended Status: Standards Track Result: Ready with Nits The document is well rewritten and is ready for publication. The following nits are for the authors to consider. Nits (line numbers are from idnits): 133 just the default Topology. An instance of such a sub-topology is Should this be "default topology"? 148 particular Topology to be used by mLDP have to become a two tuple s/Topology/topology s/two tuple/2-tuple ? 303 New MT MP FEC element SHOULD be used as the Tunnel identifier. s/New/new s/Tunnel identifier/Tunnel Identifier