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 rev. 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
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04-rtgdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/sjUReRC1Fa7va_Uk_TmegrKnq3I
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-07-02

Review
review-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04-rtgdir-lc-pignataro-2019-07-02

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.