Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-03-02
Requested 2015-02-16
Authors Bruno Decraene , Nobo Akiya , Carlos Pignataro , Loa Andersson , Sam Aldrin
Draft last updated 2015-03-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-03-04
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2015-03-04
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2015-03-04
IETF LC End Date: 2015-03-02?
IESG Telechat date: 2015-03-05

Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have
some comments.

Minor issues:
-[Page 3], Section 2.1, Table "Registry Name: DS Flags.". Is there a reason
bits 5-0 are listed as "Unassigned" and not "Reserved (MBZ)" ?, with Reference
being RFC4379 Section 3.3.

-[Page 4], Section 2.3, Table "Registry Name: Pad Type.". RFC4379 did not
reserve value 0. I could be wrong please double check.

-[Page 5], Section 2.4, Table "Registry Name: Interface and Label Stack Address
Type.". Same as above, RFC4379 did not reserve value 0.

Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 2], Section 2.1, please put in parenthesis (DSMAP) and (DDMAP) right
after when the terms are spelled out. The acronyms are use later on.

Best Regards,
Meral Shirazipour