Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology
Requested rev. 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 Raza, Chao Zhou, Luyuan Fang, Lianyuan Li, Daniel King
Draft last updated 2013-10-18
Completed reviews Genart Early review of -09 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09-genart-early-halpern-2013-10-18
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 12)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2013-10-18


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at



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.)