Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2021-06-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-06-21
Requested 2021-06-07
Authors Nagendra Kumar Nainar , Carlos Pignataro , Mustapha Aissaoui
I-D last updated 2021-06-11
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Tero Kivinen
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zayJNOhwH1aA53cmY44IINORV-I
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2021-06-11
review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2021-06-11-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2021-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is easy to read, and is almost ready for publication.
However, I do have a few editorial comments that I would like the authors to
address.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1:

The Abstract and Introductions says:

   "This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
     Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3."

I suggest to say "specifies" or "defines" instead of "proposes".

Q2:

Would it be more clear to call Section 6 "Update to RFC 8287"?

Q3:

Section 6 says:

   "This document specifies that the above code points will be used only for
   OSPFv2."

I suggest to be more explicit, and say something like:

   "This document updates RFC 8287, by specifying that the "OSPF" code points
   will be used only for OSPFv2."

Q4:

Section 7.2 adds a note to the IANA registry for the existing "OSPF" code
point. Should this specification also be added as a reference for the existing
"OSPF" code point (in addition to RFC 8287?