Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10
review-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10-genart-lc-melnikov-2015-05-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-04-08
Requested 2015-03-19
Authors Hannes Gredler , Jan Medved , Stefano Previdi , Adrian Farrel , Saikat Ray
I-D last updated 2015-05-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Matthew A. Miller (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2015-05-10
review-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10-genart-lc-melnikov-2015-05-10-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< 

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10.txt
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2015-05-10
IETF LC End Date: 2015-04-08
IESG Telechat date: N/A

My apologies for the late review of this document.

Summary: Ready with nits


Minor (but some of these might be more serious):

In 6.2.2:

If an implementation of BGP-LS detects a malformed attribute, then it
   SHOULD use the ’Attribute Discard’ action as per
   [I-D.ietf-idr-error-handling] Section 2.



This needs to be a Normative reference. Or you can keep it as 


Informative, if you change the sentence not to use RFC 2119 language.






In 3.3.1.1 - does this need a new IANA registry? (I am fine if you think 


you don't).




In 3.3.1.3/3.3.2.7 - what is "subset of the FQDN"?

In 3.3.2.3:

      The TE Default Metric TLV carries the TE-metric for this link.
      The length of this TLV is fixed at 4 octets.



I am probably showing my ignorance, but is the term "TE-metric" defined 


somewhere? The description below suggests it has substructure, which I 


don't know anything about.




       If a source protocol (e.g.
       IS-IS) does not support a Metric width of 32 bits then the high
       order octet MUST be set to zero.

Best Regards,
Alexey