IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20
review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20-genart-lc-halpern-2025-12-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-12-09
Requested 2025-11-25
Authors Italo Busi , Aihua Guo , Xufeng Liu , Tarek Saad , Igor Bryskin
I-D last updated 2026-02-18 (Latest revision 2026-02-18)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -14 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -14 by Julien Meuric (diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -19 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -19 by Sergio Belotti (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -19 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -20 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -19 by David L. Black (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/z8poYwtWL2NJ2-BQRUWl3Hg6H1s
Reviewed revision 20 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-12-23
review-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20-genart-lc-halpern-2025-12-23-00
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

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

(My apologies for the lateness of this review.)

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2025-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2025-12-09
IESG Telechat date: 2026-01-08

Summary:  This document is basically ready for publication as a proposed
standards RFC.   There is one wording issue that I believe should be addressed.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    I believe that this was mentioned in other reviews, and discussed, but I am
    still having trouble with it,  Section 3.1 says "The "ietf-te-types" module
    (Section 4) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of
    any specific technology or control-plane instance."  Except that section
    3.1.1 then defines multiple MPLS specific identities.  Which are clearly
    technology specific.  If you have a narrower meaning of "specific
    technology" in mind, please use wording that conveys that meaning.

Nits/editorial comments: N/A