Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang-00
review-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang-00-rtgdir-early-zhang-2025-09-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2025-09-12
Requested 2025-08-17
Requested by Christian Hopps
Authors Yingzhen Qu , Acee Lindem
I-D last updated 2026-05-03 (Latest revision 2026-05-03)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Zheng Zhang (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -00 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Comments
This document was split out from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-yang-augmentation-v1/ and is being prepared for WGLC
Assignment Reviewer Zheng Zhang
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/leVcz1agEw0pnXyPqHYuX2c_u4Y
Reviewed revision 00 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-09-05
review-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang-00-rtgdir-early-zhang-2025-09-05-00
Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang-00.txt
Reviewer: Zheng(Sandy) Zhang
Review Date: 2025-09-05
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This draft is well written and can be continued.

Comments:
Regarding the algo number type, since it is used in many places, can we
consider defining a specific unified type for it?