Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-01
review-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-01-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2016-08-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-08-16 | |
Requested | 2016-08-08 | |
Authors | Les Ginsberg , Paul Wells , Bruno Decraene , Tony Przygienda , Hannes Gredler | |
I-D last updated | 2016-08-16 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Rich Salz (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Tim Wicinski (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Wicinski |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 04) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2016-08-16 |
review-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-01-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2016-08-16-00
Hi I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document Reviewed: draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02 Status: Ready with nits Spelling Nits: Abstract: "Corruption of the Remainining Lifetime Field" *Remaining* 2 (vi): not result in LSPDB inconsistency among routers in the newtork. *network* (vi): vi. If the RemainingLifetime of the new LSP is less than MaxAge it is set to MaxAge Period at end of sentence It appears that you interchange 'Remaining Lifetime' and 'RemainingLifetime' (14 for the former, 19 for the latter). I could not understand the pattern. Was this intentional? tim