IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-08
Yes
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2010-08-11)
Unknown
The following comments were made during Routing Directorate review. The authors have agreed text with the reviewer that addresses these issues. ====== Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has some minor issues to be considered before publication. Comments: This document is well written and easy to read. I have several nits and one minor question. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: Section 3.1.1: Global, site-local and link-local addresses are mentioned. Have you considered that site-local addresses have been deprecated by RFC 3879? Have you considered unique local addresses in RFC 4139? Nits: - I would suggest to add RFC 2119 to normative references. - Usually, the main body starts with Introduction section, followed by Requirement Words. I would suggest that Section 2 (Overview) is moved up to Section 1, followed by Requirement Words (or Requirement Words can be a separate section). ======
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-08-11)
Unknown
A number of acronyms are used without expansion. --- It would probably be proper for Section 5 to include a pointer to RFC 5304 for general security considerations for IS-IS. --- Are you sure the authors don't want to change their affiliation?
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Harrington Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-08-10)
Unknown
1) acronyms should be expanded on first use. CSPF, SPF, 2) section 3 is very lightweight; mainly it is pointers to sub-sections in section 4 that correspond to IPv4 TLVs. I think section 3.2 could be eliminated by simply moving the reference to the IPv4 TLVs into each section 4 sub-section. (or even just providing a table of corresponding TLVs) 3) in 4.5, you should have a referendce for the Hello.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-08-10)
Unknown
Several acronyms are not expanded on first use (e.g., TLV, LSP, IIH, PDU). The RFC Editor will ask that you expand them, so you might as well start working on that task now. :)
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown