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 revision | 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 Reddy Kondreddy , Ramon Casellas | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-09 | |
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 | Tomonori Takeda |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2015-10-09 |
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-10-09-00
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