Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-11
review-ietf-mpls-residence-time-11-rtgdir-early-jia-2016-12-09-00

Hello,

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
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

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-residence-time-11.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: Dec.6, 2016
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has minor issues that
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:
The draft is clearly structured and easy to read.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
1) Section 3.1, the description of "Type field" of PTP Sub-TLV format
(following Figure 3) is the same as the description of "PTPType". Shouldn't the
PTP Sub-TLV follow RTM sub-TLV registry?

"The Type field identifies PTP sub-TLV defined in the Table 19 Values of
messageType field in [IEEE.1588.2008]."

"The PTPType indicates the type of PTP packet carried in the TLV. PTPType is
the messageType field of the PTPv2 packet whose values are defined in the Table
19 [IEEE.1588.2008]."

Another question about RTM sub-TLV registry, why only PTP 2-step is defined
under RTM sub-TLV registry(8.3)?

Nits:
1) Section 1, first paragragh, s/Generalized Associated Channel/Generic
Associated Channel 2) Section 3, first paragragh, s/select/selected 3) Section
4.7, last paragraph of Page 12, s/If match have been found, then the
calculated..../If match has been found, the calculated.... 4) Section 5, the
first paragragh, ".....as described in Section 4.6 or as described in the
second paragraph of Section 4 and in Section 4.6, ...." Duplication? Not sure
about what " the second paragraph of Section 4" really indicates 5) Section 7,
Page 18(in the middle), BC needs to be spelt out, s/BC/Boundary Clock

B.R.
Jia

发件人: Zhangxian (Xian)
发送时间: 2016年11月22日 16:41
收件人: Hejia (Jia)
抄送: db3546@att.com; jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com; 'Jon Hudson'
主题: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time

Hey, Jia,

Please would you do a routing directorate review of this draft?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-11

The draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.  The responsible AD –
Deborah – has requested a review from the directorate before she initiates the
IETF last call.  It would be great if you could review the document and send
comments by 6th December.

You can find some guidance and a review template at the following link:
​https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDirGuidance

Please send your comments to the RTG Area Directors
(​rtg-ads@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-ads@ietf.org>) and the draft authors, and copy
the MPLS mailing list and the rtg-dir list.

Please let me know if you can do it, or not.

Many thanks,
Xian