Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07
review-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-10-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-10-25 | |
Requested | 2016-10-05 | |
Authors | Kireeti Kompella , George Swallow , Carlos Pignataro , Nagendra Kumar Nainar , Sam Aldrin , Mach Chen | |
I-D last updated | 2016-10-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Elwyn B. Davies
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Vincent Roca (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Sheng Jiang |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2016-10-22 |
review-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-10-22-00
Hi, OPS-DIR, Authors, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This Standards Track document specifies a mechanism to detect data plane failures in MPLS LSPs. It obsoletes 4379, also 6424, 6829 and 7537. As a bis document, this document is well written. It is ready to be published. I don't find any major issues. Two minor comments below: This document have a few IPv6 addresses '0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0', IPv4 addresses 198.51.100.0/24, and 203.0.113.0/24 in examples, which do not match RFC3849-compliant IPv6 address format or RFC6890-compliant IPv4 address format. The draft obsoletes a few RFCs, it should also be mentioned in the abstract besides document header. Best regards, Sheng