Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14
review-ietf-idr-rpd-14-rtgdir-early-shah-2022-01-31-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 14 (document currently at 20) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2022-01-31 | |
| Requested | 2021-12-11 | |
| Requested by | Keyur Patel | |
| Authors | Zhenbin Li , Liang Ou , Yujia Luo , Gyan Mishra , Huaimo Chen , Haibo Wang | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-03-01 (Latest revision 2026-03-01) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -14
by Himanshu Shah
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -15 by Linda Dunbar (diff) |
|
| Comments |
Please review. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Himanshu Shah |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-rpd by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/C8PSoiyHCCYApTLaBdsl4dW0Vp8 | |
| Reviewed revision | 14 (document currently at 20) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2022-01-31 |
review-ietf-idr-rpd-14-rtgdir-early-shah-2022-01-31-00
The document is written well. I am glad it covers the the precedence of static routing policy against the signaled routing policy. It would be good if the example would use the explicit address range to explain; (for example - 1.1.1.0 to 1.1.1.255), in section 4.2.1. I was asked to review version 14 and have not checked the delta between the latest version 15.