Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06
review-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-05-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-05
Requested revision 05 (document currently at 11)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-05-30
Requested 2025-05-14
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Peter Psenak , Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Shraddha Hegde , Gyan Mishra
I-D last updated 2026-02-27 (Latest revision 2025-09-25)
Completed reviews Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Comments
The document has passed the WGLC, and we'd like to request directorate reviews and prepare for the IETF LC.
Assignment Reviewer Giuseppe Fioccola
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/8QJFLfIbHwUDxTPNhiJo_ueAp3Q
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-05-29
review-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-05-29-00
This document defines two new flags in IS-IS and OSPF to signal loss of
reachability to an individual prefix in case of summarization. I think that it
has a well defined scope and is almost ready for publication. In this regard, I
noticed the normative reference to draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags,
which, I guess, will be published before this document.

I have only few minor comments for your consideration:

- In the Abstract, I suggest to replace 'In the presence of summarization,'
with 'Summarization is often used in IGP to improve network efficiency, but'.

- In the Introduction, I suggest to swap the last two paragraphs, otherwise it
is not clear how they are sequential.

- Section 4 on "Generation of the UPA" could be moved before section 2 on
"Supporting UPA in IS-IS" and section 3 on "Supporting UPA in OSPF". I think it
would be more logical.

- Section 6 on "Deployment Considerations for UPA" seems to discuss only the
case of area/domain partition. I would also highlight what are the operational
benefits of UPA, as briefly mentioned in the Introduction.

- In section 9 on "Security Considerations", you can also add the reference to
RFC7794 and draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags.