Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
review-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06-opsdir-lc-hares-2017-09-06-01
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-08-28 | |
Requested | 2017-08-14 | |
Authors | Xiaohu Xu , Bruno Decraene , Robert Raszuk , Luis M. Contreras , Luay Jalil | |
I-D last updated | 2017-09-20 | |
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 | Susan Hares |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2017-09-20 |
review-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06-opsdir-lc-hares-2017-09-06-01
Gunter and OPS-DIR: I’m confused whether this draft is in my review queue or not. Since Tim[‘s review has taken care of the other issues, I will confine my review to the link to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps. Please note in the last review by IDR of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps there was a great deal of discussion on the draft. I reviewed this draft to determine if draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 matches draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.txt. It does. I plan to start a WG LC on the draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06.txt this week. It may change during this review since the last WG LC caused several changes. Of course, I could not resist indicating one editorial nit. Otherwise they might take my editor’s red pen away from me (smile). Please note in section 3, paragraph 1, 4th sentence Old/If the Encapsulation Capability TLV appears more than one in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored./ It may be wise to specify something more detailed in the dependent clause. New /If the Encapsulation Capability TLV appears more than one in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and the subsequent Encapsulation Capability TLVs MUST be ignored./ I only mention it because it might impact the testing of these features. Best wishes, Sue Hares