Telechat Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-11-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-11-17
Requested 2015-11-12
Authors Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Venugopal Kondreddy, Ramon Casellas
Draft last updated 2015-11-13
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-telechat-carpenter-2015-11-13
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-11-13

Review
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-11-13

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

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: 2015-11-13
IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-09
IESG Telechat date: 2015-11-19

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

Comment:
--------

I haven't seen a response to my Last Call review, so this is the same.

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?