Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension
Requested revision 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
Authors Hao Long , Min Ye , Greg Mirsky , Alessandro D'Alessandro , Himanshu C. Shah
I-D last updated 2016-10-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
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)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 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


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


Document is ready with nits.

Major issues:


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.