Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10
review-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10-tsvart-lc-aboba-2020-09-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2020-09-16
Requested 2020-09-02
Authors Stewart Bryant, Mach Chen, George Swallow, Siva Sivabalan, Greg Mirsky
Draft last updated 2020-09-08
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Bernard Aboba (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by Bernard Aboba (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bernard Aboba 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10-tsvart-lc-aboba-2020-09-08
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/_qWgkCgR2hMg-lR_uqmKbyJwqXc
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-09-08

Review
review-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10-tsvart-lc-aboba-2020-09-08

Subject: Transport Directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework

Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review result: Ready
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10
Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review Date: 2020-09-08
Intended Status: Informational

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary:
        This document is ready for publication.  The NIT in the security
        considerations section noted in the review of -08 has been fixed,
        but no other changes have been made to address the prior review
        comments.

Comments:
        The document is short and clearly written.  While it references
        the requirements in RFC 8372, it does not refer to them, so it's
        hard to verify whether this document does address those
        requirements (and how).

        Also, this document doesn't cover data collection or SFL allocation,
        so there is quite a bit that is out of scope. This makes me wonder
        whether an implementation of this specification could interoperate
        with other implementations based solely on this specification. 

Major Issues:
        No major issues found 

Minor Issues:

See previous review of -08.