Last Call Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-16
review-ietf-alto-path-vector-16-artart-lc-kyzivat-2021-08-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-alto-path-vector |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 25) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
Deadline | 2021-09-03 | |
Requested | 2021-08-11 | |
Authors | Kai Gao , Young Lee , Sabine Randriamasy , Y. Richard Yang , Jingxuan Zhang | |
I-D last updated | 2021-08-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -19
by Samuel Weiler
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -17 by Suresh Krishnan (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Tim Chown (diff) Artart Last Call review of -16 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -19 by Tim Chown (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -22 by Samuel Weiler (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Paul Kyzivat |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-alto-path-vector by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/S97ViLB3YGpv2ljI9xnQGLCQYgM | |
Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 25) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2021-08-29 |
review-ietf-alto-path-vector-16-artart-lc-kyzivat-2021-08-29-00
I am the assigned Art-Art reviewer for this draft. The Art Area Review Team (Art-Art) reviews all Art Area IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-16 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2021-06-29 IETF LC End Date: ??? IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. General: This document is well written. The content was challenging for this reviewer who is not acquainted with the subject domain. Hence comments here are superficial. Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 1 Nits: 1 1) Minor: Use of Content-ID This document makes use of Content-ID with constrained syntax and values. This usage *ought* to be consistent with http and mime definitions of Content-ID syntax. I'm actually having some difficulty in identifying the most recent authoritative document for this syntax. The IANA registry of http header field names refers to RFC4229, and it refers to "The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol", W3C NOTE NOTE-drp-19970825, August 1997. That reference seems oddly specialized to be the authoritative definition. In any case it defines it as: content-identifier = URI ( "," URI )* A traditional one is <left@right> with some constraints on the content of left and right. I'm not going to be the judge of what is authoritative here, but I suggest you find out and then conform to it. 2) NIT: Use of IPv6 As noted by IdNits, you should consider including some IPv6 addresses in examples.