Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09-genart-lc-gurbani-2022-08-12-00
| 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 | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/XdX6DQcSJviepiZBVDd2WehpoW8 | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2022-08-12 |
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09-genart-lc-gurbani-2022-08-12-00
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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) Minor: - 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?) Nits: - 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? Thanks.