Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-28
Requested 2017-08-14
Authors Xiaohu Xu , Bruno Decraene , Robert Raszuk , Luis M. Contreras , Luay Jalil
I-D last updated 2017-08-21
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06-genart-lc-resnick-2017-08-21
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2017-08-21
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


Document: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-08-21
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-28
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31

Summary: Almost Ready

The content of this document is fine. However, I think the IANA registry stuff
is not ready.

Major issues:

I think the registrations other than for Endpoint and Color are incorrect and
should not be in this document. Certainly the "Reference" field for 1, 2, 5, 6,
and 7 should not be "This document", given that the syntax and semantics for
these values are defined in other documents. I also think that having things in
this registry which are also used by the BGP registry is asking for trouble:
You wouldn't want the references for the two registries to get out of sync.
This seems like a mess to me. Would it be possible for IANA to simply rename
the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry to "BGP and OSPF
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs", and share the registry between the
two protocols? Then have this (and other) document(s) add values to that
registry. That way, the documents that actually define the codepoints can be
put into the registry.

Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:

In section 7.1, please add:

   [RFC Editor: Please replace "TBD1" in section 3 with the registry value
   allocated by IANA, and remove this note].

That will save them from hunting.