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 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

Review
review-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09-genart-early-halpern-2013-10-18

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.)