Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-05
review-ietf-idr-shutdown-05-rtgdir-early-berger-2017-02-09-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-shutdown |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-02-03 | |
Requested | 2017-01-17 | |
Requested by | Susan Hares | |
Authors | Job Snijders , Jakob Heitz , John Scudder | |
I-D last updated | 2017-02-09 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -05
by Lou Berger
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Leif Johansson (diff) |
|
Comments |
Early QA Review. WG LC starting in January. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Lou Berger |
State | Completed | |
Review |
review-ietf-idr-shutdown-05-rtgdir-early-berger-2017-02-09
|
|
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Has Issues | |
Completed | 2017-02-09 |
review-ietf-idr-shutdown-05-rtgdir-early-berger-2017-02-09-00
Reviewer: Lou Berger Review Date: 2/9/17 Review requested by: 2/13 Intended Status: Standards track Summary: I have one minor comment about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: Draft is short and easy to understand. I see the need for one minor clarification that can be resolved based on implementation experience. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: In reading the document it's unclear if Shutdown Communication field must include a trailing zero or not. (I authored something similar once and had an interop problem where one implementation assumed null termination was required and included in length, while the other didn't. Our intent was no null required, but the spec wasn't explicit.) Either are fine, and given there are implementations you might just want to have the spec match the implementation. Nits: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-05.txt reports nits that should be fixed. That's it! Cheers, Lou