Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11
review-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11-genart-lc-sethi-2020-04-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2020-05-05 | |
| Requested | 2020-04-20 | |
| Authors | Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Peter Psenak , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski , Matthew Bocci | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-04-24 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -08
by Dhruv Dhody
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -12 by Dhruv Dhody (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Scott O. Bradner (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Rich Salz (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Mohit Sethi (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Mohit Sethi |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cpGWugPuM1XApMc7-ZkOSXabMRs | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2020-04-24 |
review-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11-genart-lc-sethi-2020-04-24-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11 Reviewer: Mohit Sethi Review Date: 2020-04-24 IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-05 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document specifies how Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) are advertised using IS-IS. For advertising ELC, a flag in the Prefix Attribute Flags is used. For advertising ERLD, a Node MSD Advertisement is used. Major issues: Minor issues: The document is short and straightforward. For someone like me who is not familiar with the routing area, would it make sense to explain why signalling ELC information with MPLS is not sufficient (or what are the benefits of advertising with IS-IS)? Nits/editorial comments: In section 3, "used as the ECL Flag" should perhaps be "used as the ELC Flag"? In section 4, "IANA for EARLD-MSD" should perhaps be "IANA for ERLD-MSD"? In section 6, "ECL Flag (E-flag)." should perhaps be "ELC Flag (E-flag)."?