Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-02
review-ietf-bess-pta-flags-02-opsdir-lc-brownlee-2016-04-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-05-03 | |
Requested | 2016-04-10 | |
Authors | Eric C. Rosen , Thomas Morin | |
I-D last updated | 2016-04-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -02 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Christian Huitema (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Nevil Brownlee (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Nevil Brownlee |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-04-23 |
review-ietf-bess-pta-flags-02-opsdir-lc-brownlee-2016-04-23-00
Hi all: I have performed an Operations Directorate review of draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-02 "The BGP-based control procedures for Multicast Virtual Private Networks make use of a BGP attribute known as the "P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel" attribute. The attribute contains a one-octet "Flags" field. The purpose of this document is to establish an IANA registry for the assignment of the bits in this field. Since the Flags field contains only eight bits, this document also defines a new BGP Extended Community, "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags", that can be used to carry additional flags for the PMSI Tunnel attribute. This document updates RFC 6514." This is a short draft that does exactly what its abstract (above) says. The reason for asking IANA to create two new registries are explained - it seems that this is because providers now want to support Multicast Virtual Private Networks by using PMSI Tunnels in BGP; that makes it clear that the new registries are needed. The draft spells out exactly how the PMSI Tunnel Flags and its (new) Extended Community Additional FLags should be handled by BGP - that's spelt out clearly, so - as far as I can see - it should not cause any operational problems. Overall, the draft is clear, simple and easy to understand. I believe it is ready for publication as an RFC. Cheers, Nevil -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nevil Brownlee Computer Science Department Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 The University of Auckland FAX: +64 9 373 7453 Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand