Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-11
review-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-11-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2022-10-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-11-14
Requested 2022-10-24
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Ketan Talaulikar
I-D last updated 2022-10-27
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -14 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -14 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/ZsHua74Eljq6YmKfLRY0i9Ja44Y
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 17)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-10-27
review-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-11-rtgdir-lc-halpern-2022-10-27-00
Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 26-Oct-2022
IETF LC End Date: N/A
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:
    This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should
    be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
Include anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding your
review.

Major Issues:
    None

Minor Issues:
    None

Nits:
  At the end of the first paragraph of section 4, could we add a sentence
  saying "the BGP-LS attributes appear within the corresponding new BGP NLRI"
  or similar?  While that is explained later in section 4, the length of the
  section means that a new reader is left wondering for quite some time.

 Section 4.1 has the paragraph:
   All TLVs within the NLRI that are not specified as mandatory are
   considered optional.  All TLVs within the BGP-LS Attribute are
   considered optional unless specified otherwise.
  As far as I can tell, those two sentences are saying, about two different
  aspects of the encoding, the same thing.  But they say it in different ways. 
  If there is some subtle difference in meaning taht is intended, please
  clarify.  If the meaning is indeed the same, could we use parallel
  construction to avoid readers thinking there is a difference?