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 revision | 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 Reddy Kondreddy , Ramon Casellas | |
I-D last updated | 2015-11-13 | |
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 | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2015-11-13 |
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-11-13-00
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 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?