Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01
review-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-06-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-06-03 | |
| Requested | 2014-05-22 | |
| Authors | Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi , Yi Yang | |
| I-D last updated | 2014-06-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Derek Atkins (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Melinda Shore (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-06-03
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 02) | |
| Result | Ready with Nits | |
| Completed | 2014-06-03 |
review-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-06-03-00
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp-01 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2014-06-02 IETF LC End Date: 2014-06-03 IESG Telechat date: 2014-06-12 Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standard RFC but I have some editorial comments. Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 5], Section 2, typo , "identifes"-->"identifies" -[Pages 8, 10, 12], typo: "sub-TLVss"----->"sub-TLVs" -[page 6] section 2.2, an example would be useful for: " o The eight bit type is encoded as an unsigned 16 bit integer o The eight bit length field is replaced by the 16 bit length field " -[Page 14], Section 5 the sentence could be more readable with the suggested change: old: " Even when all routers in a given scope support FS PDUs, if not all routers in the flooding domain for a given scope support that scope flooding of the FS-LSPs may be compromised. " suggested:(added ", then") " Even when all routers in a given scope support FS PDUs, if not all routers in the flooding domain for a given scope support that scope, then flooding of the FS-LSPs may be compromised. " -Suggestion, when reference to [IS-IS] is made, it would be very useful to point to the right section as well, when possible. Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com