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.