Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-05-18
Requested 2018-04-19
Requested by Acee Lindem
Draft last updated 2018-05-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Kathleen Moriarty
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Niven-Jenkins
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02-rtgdir-lc-niven-jenkins-2018-05-03
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2018-05-03



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02.txt
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 3 May 2018
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. 

Comments: The document is readable and succinctly addresses the use case outlined.

Minor issues:
Section 3, paragraph 4 states:

   If the Node Attribute TLV carries both the Node IPv4 Local Address
   sub-TLV and the Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV, then the X-AF
   component must be considered for the consolidated calculation of MPLS
   TE LSPs.

Is the lowercase must supposed to be an uppercase MUST?

Section 4, paragraph 1 states:

   Way of using
   these TLVs as specified in this document is fully backward compatible
   with previous standard documents.

This does not read quite right to me. Maybe you should consider rewording it to something like the text I suggest below. Also when you say “standard documents” do you mean RFCs? Is it worth citing an example for completeness?

   The way these TLVs are used, as specified in this document, is fully backward compatible with earlier RFCs.