Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2024-02-14
Requested 2024-02-01
Requested by Andrew Alston
Authors IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Syed Kamran Raza , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Arkadiy Gulko
I-D last updated 2024-02-17
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Mike McBride (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Early review of -05 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yingzhen Qu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 07)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-02-17

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts 
as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or 
by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 17 Feb 2024
IETF LC End Date: n/a
Intended Status: Standards Track

Result: Ready with Nits
The document is well rewritten and is ready for publication. The following
nits are for the authors to consider.

Nits (line numbers are from idnits):
133	   just the default Topology.  An instance of such a sub-topology is
Should this be "default topology"?

148	   particular Topology to be used by mLDP have to become a two tuple
s/two tuple/2-tuple ?

303	   New MT MP FEC element SHOULD be used as the Tunnel identifier.
s/Tunnel identifier/Tunnel Identifier