Early Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-10-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-10-09
Requested 2015-09-25
Authors Dhruv Dhody, Udayasree Palle, Venugopal Kondreddy, Ramon Casellas
Draft last updated 2015-10-09
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 Tomonori Takeda 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-10-09
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-10-09

Review
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-10-09

Hello, 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 9 October 2015
IETF LC End Date: Not known
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:
No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:
This document intends to be an Experimetal RFC, adding new subobjects for IGP areas and 4-byte AS numbers for ERO, XRO or EXRS in RSVP-TE. There are several example use cases in Appendix. I am not confident whether there is a real value to define new subobjects for IGP areas, but new subobjects does not break anything, thus I think it is fine to go forward.

Major Issues: 
None

Minor Issues: 
None

Nits:
None

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda