Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-11-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-11-09
Requested 2015-10-28
Authors Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Venugopal Kondreddy, Ramon Casellas
Draft last updated 2015-11-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Liang Xia (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -03 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-11-07
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-11-07

Review
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-11-07

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-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-11-07
IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-09
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Ready with issues
--------

Comment:
--------

Needs to be approved along with draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence.

Major Issues:
-------------

> 3.2.1.  Autonomous system
>
>   [RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number.
>
>   To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following
>   subobject is defined:
>
>      0                   1                   2                   3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |L|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                          AS-ID (4 bytes)                      |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I don't understand why that is considered Experimental. It seems like
a major defect in RFC 3209 that needs to be fixed on the standards
track as soon as possible, independently of the present draft.

Minor Issues:
-------------

It would be nice to see a suggested timescale for the experiment in section 1.1.
How many years before this document should be evaluated?