Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-03
review-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-03-rtgdir-lc-rogge-2025-01-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2025-01-17
Requested 2024-12-27
Requested by Acee Lindem
Authors Ran Chen , Detao Zhao , Peter Psenak , Ketan Talaulikar , Liyan Gong
I-D last updated 2025-06-12 (Latest revision 2025-04-08)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Mike Ounsworth (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Tony Li (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/vGASYRU-OvcT8wiOwA4Ijwbkizc
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-01-10
review-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-03-rtgdir-lc-rogge-2025-01-10-00
Hi,

I have been asked to review draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags, which I
hereby do for draft 03.

I think the document is easy to understand and well written. Providing more
limited sized bitfields for flags is futile, so providing a mechanism that
gives OSPF an arbitrary amount of bits should solve this issue.

The text covers all things I could think about... I am unsure how multiple of
these TLVs could be put into the same message (except for a bugged
implementation), but its a good idea to exactly specify which one must be
parsed.

Henning Rogge