Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05
review-ietf-ospf-ttz-05-genart-lc-levin-2017-01-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ttz
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-12-30
Requested 2016-12-16
Authors Huaimo Chen , Richard Li , Alvaro Retana , Yi Yang , Vic Liu
I-D last updated 2017-01-05
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Christian Hopps (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Orit Levin (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Linda Dunbar
Assignment Reviewer Orit Levin
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ospf-ttz by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-01-05
review-ietf-ospf-ttz-05-genart-lc-levin-2017-01-05-00
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

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05

Reviewer: Orit Levin

Review Date: 2017-01-03

IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-03

IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

This draft is well-written and well organized. It is basically ready for
publication, but has a couple of nits that should be fixed before publication.

Section 5.1 Paragraph 2 sets requirements for uniqueness of TTZ ID and of TTZ
instance. The scope of the ID and the algorithm for ensuring its uniqueness
needs to be specified.

Also, the text about "TTZ instances" is somewhat confusing. Consider replacing
it with "A TTZ MUST NOT have more than one instance in a network."

Section 5.2 Paragraph 2 contains a typo. Replace "need configure" to "need to
configure".

Section 14 first table needs clarification. Consider replacing "9 Suggested" to
"Value '9' is suggested" and stating the reason for not choosing the next
available value.

Thanks,

Orit.