Skip to main content

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