Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09
review-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09-genart-early-halpern-2013-10-18-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-03-25 | |
Requested | 2013-10-17 | |
Authors | Quintin Zhao , Syed Kamran Raza , Chao Zhou , Luyuan Fang , Lianyuan Li , Daniel King | |
I-D last updated | 2013-10-18 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Early review of -09
by Joel M. Halpern
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joel M. Halpern |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2013-10-18 |
review-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09-genart-early-halpern-2013-10-18-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 18-October-2013 IETF LC End Date: 6-November-2013 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. I believe there is one major issue that is easily addressed. Major issues: I may have simply missed this reviewing the document, but as far as I can tell there is no specification of the relationship between the MT-IDs in this document and the MT-IDs used elsewhere. Yes, I can take a guess at the intent. But is it stated somewhere that these are the same IDs negotiated in the relevant IGP? Or is there some other intent? Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: I find it odd that the MT-ID follows the IP prefix in the various formats. Yes, the computer can parse both. But since we tend to think in Network byte order, I expect more significant information (MT-ID) to occur before less significant information (IP prefix within topology.)