Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-11
review-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-11-genart-lc-enghardt-2023-05-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2023-05-15 | |
Requested | 2023-05-01 | |
Authors | Zhenbin Li , Zhibo Hu, Ketan Talaulikar , Peter Psenak | |
I-D last updated | 2023-05-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -11
by Reese Enghardt
(diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Martin Vigoureux (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Reese Enghardt |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/w1UYHLxqOPXlkhCce5DigijrCpo | |
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2023-05-10 |
review-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-11-genart-lc-enghardt-2023-05-10-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-11 Reviewer: Reese Enghardt Review Date: 2023-05-10 IETF LC End Date: 2023-05-15 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is clear, concise, and well-written. It is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. Major issues: None. Minor issues: None. Nits/editorial comments: 5. SRv6 SIDs and Reachability "if the locator associated with SRv6 SID advertisements is the longest prefix match installed in the forwarding plane for those SIDs" Please capitalize the beginning of the paragraph 9. Advertisement of SRv6 SIDs Associated with Adjacencies "although it MAY omit doing so if features like traffic engineering or Topology-Independent Loop Free Alternate (TI-LFA) that requires it are not in use" requires -> require? I'm not 100% sure what "it" refers to, but I'll assume it refers to a unique SRv6 End.X SID. The HTML version of the document looks different from most other recent documents. Was the most recent tooling used here? If not, please consider updating the XML format or tooling.