Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04
review-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04-rtgdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-07-08
Requested 2019-06-21
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Bow-Nan Cheng , Lou Berger
I-D last updated 2019-07-02
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/sjUReRC1Fa7va_Uk_TmegrKnq3I
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Has nits
Completed 2019-07-02
review-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04-rtgdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-02-00
TL;DR:
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review Result: Ready with Nits

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
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/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-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04.txt
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.

Comments:
This is a well written and straightforward document describing an extension to
RFC 8175's Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP). The Data Item and Extension
Type for Latency Range closely follow the specification of the corresponding
Latency information elements from RFC 8175.

Minors/Nits for consideration:
* It would be useful to expand the DLEP acronym in the Title and Abstract.
* Regarding "The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable", an
operational comment: What is the default (enabled or disabled)? In what cases
does this not need be configurable (i.e., is it a MUST)? * Error checking: what
happens if the Latency data item defined in RFC 8175 falls outside the range of
the Latency Range data item herein defined? (i.e., I understand that should not
happen but I may be wrong). And what if Latency Range is included without
Latency being included? * Section 5: s/requests the assignment of 2
values/requests the assignment of two values/

Thanks!

Carlos Pignataro.