Skip to main content

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
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-10-22
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