Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-08-17
Requested 2022-08-03
Authors Ketan Talaulikar , Peter Psenak , Shawn Zandi , Gaurav Dawra
I-D last updated 2022-08-12
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Andrew G. Malis (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09-genart-lc-gurbani-2022-08-12
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2022-08-12
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-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-??
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2022-08-12
IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Draft is ready with nits for a Proposed Standard.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 1 (please see below)

Nits/editorial comments: 4 (please see below)

- Sec. 3.6: Note that Type is "TBD" here.  Should this be 1046, as shown in
 Table 1?  (Or is the use of 1046 still under discussion?)

- I note that certain acronyms --- IGP, NLRI, ASLA --- are not defined.  I
suspect that these are well-known in the community, hence need no definition. 
Just in case they are not, you may consider expanding the rare ones on first
use. - Sec. 1: s/Flexible algorithm is called so as/Flexible algorithm is so
called because/ - Sec. 2: s/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node
is/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node is (are)/
  Reason: symmetry in the sentence construction
- Sec. 3.6: Is Figure 7 missing the trailing "//" for sub-TLV tpes?