Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07
review-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-10-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-10-24 | |
| Requested | 2016-10-13 | |
| Other Reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff) Genart Telechat review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Mehmet Ersue (diff) Genart Telechat review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Genart Telechat review of -10 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) |
|
| Review | State | Completed |
| Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen | |
| Review | review-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-10-16 | |
| Posted at | https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13815.html | |
| Reviewed rev. | 07 (document currently at 13) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-10-16 | |
| Review completed: | 2016-10-16 |
Review
review-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-10-16
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07 Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen Review Date: 2016-10-16 IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-24 IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03 Summary: Document is ready with nits. Major issues: None. Minor issues: It is not clear to me how the ISCD Availability sub-TLV is encoded into RFC4203 Switching Capability-specific information field. This is because RFC4203 lists specific encodings depending on “Switching Cap” field and those encoded information fields seem not to be TLVs. I would like to see some text that deals with switching cap, its relation to the TLV described in this document and the coexistence with existing capability specific information fields described in RFC4203. If I did not understand something regarding the encoding that is supposed to be trivial I am happy to told that ;) Nits/editorial comments: o Line 21: ISCD is not expanded. o Line 142: unnecessary extra space in "a < availability”. o Line 150: Space needed before the reference "protocol[ETPAI].” o Line 142-.. TE is never expanded or part of the list acronyms. o Lines 176-178: formatting issue with indentation, line spacing and line endings (not a fullstop but ‘;’). o Line 162: TLV is never expanded or part of the list acronyms. __________________________________________