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 | 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 | 2020-10-20 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -17
by Jonathan Hardwick
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff) Genart Last Call review of -17 by Dale R. Worley (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -16 by Wesley Eddy (diff) Opsdir 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 | 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.