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 revision | 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 Reddy Kondreddy , Ramon Casellas | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-11-07 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by
Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Brian E. 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 E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-11-07
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Ready with Issues | |
| Completed | 2015-11-07 |
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-11-07-00
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-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?