Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-10-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2020-10-21
Requested 2020-10-07
Authors Christoph Loibl , Robert Raszuk , Susan Hares
I-D last updated 2023-07-25 (Latest revision 2020-12-14)
Completed reviews Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -19 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -17 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/oAxjWklVs-a17EDSEZ-LBMu0w5k
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-10-20
review-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-17-opsdir-lc-wu-2020-10-20-00
I have reviewed this document on behalf of the Operations and Management
Directorate. I believe this document is well written. One clarification
question I want to ask here is why not consolidate this document into
I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis since rc5575bis has just begun. Regarding Type 13 -
Flow Label , I am wondering why Type 13 component values can not be be encoded
as 8-byte quantities? why len=11 is not supported for IPv6 case? Regarding "the
Sub-Type always TBD" in section 6.1, I want to suggest to add reference to IANA
section, i.e., section 8.2.