Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-01-17
Requested 2015-01-02
Authors Jianrui Han , Greg M. Bernstein , Young Lee , Dan Li , Wataru Imajuku
I-D last updated 2015-01-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -19 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready
Completed 2015-01-14
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150107
IETF LC End Date: 20150117
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - you use a strange indentation for sub sections... Perhaps it is from
  the tempate?? Anyway it will be handled/fixed by the RFC Editor.

 - 2 page 6:
  1 -- the device is switched(e.g., ROADM/OXC)
                             ^ add a space here

 - 2.2 page 7: OxFF -> 0xff (letter O -> digit 0)

 - 2.2 page 8: RestrictType -> RestrictionType

 - 2.3 page 11:
  0x01(Inclusive Range)
      ^ add a space here

 - 2.3 page 11: I can't understand the unnumbered in this statement:
  "... Note
   that the Action field can be set to 0x01 (Inclusive Range) only when
   unnumbered link identifier is used."

 - 2.6.1 page 16: I suggest: Num Labels -> Num Labels = N
  in the schema

 - 2.6.2 page 16: I suggest: Num Labels -> Num Labels = 2
  in the schema

 - 2.6.3 page 17: missing parenthesis:
  "positions (Num Labels) and beyond SHOULD be set to zero"
                                    ^ add ) here?

 - 6 page 28: I don't fully understand why RFC 5307 is an
  informative reference and RFC 4203 (same with OSPF in place
  of IS-IS) is a normative one.

 - pages 31 and 32: perhaps another side-effect from the template:
  inusual (for a draft) IP statement & co...


Francis.Dupont at