Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05-genart-lc-even-2024-05-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-05-02
Requested 2024-04-18
Authors IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Syed Kamran Raza , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Arkadiy Gulko
I-D last updated 2024-05-02
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 Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/uETdASJBc4Pwq9qwkSA61R2MPvY
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-05-02
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05-genart-lc-even-2024-05-02-00
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2024-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-02
IESG Telechat date: 2024-05-16

Summary:
The document is ready for publication as a standard track rfc with nits

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
1. This document is using the few types from iana fed type name space registry.
I think that the Iana section should ask to update the registry pointing to
this document and verify that all fields in the relevant entries are not
changed 2. The document is using 8 bits from the MT IP address for the IPA
field. Should this document title say that it updates RFC7307 or specify how to
prevent different use of these reserved bits?