Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-03-03
Requested 2015-02-25
Authors Jie Dong , Mach Chen , Zhenqiang Li , Daniele Ceccarelli
I-D last updated 2015-03-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2015-03-16
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2015/03/03
IETF LC End Date: 2015/02/18
IESG Telechat date: 20150305

Summary: Almost ready for PS.  I noticed at a late stage in the last 

call reviewing process that the requirement that the hop before a 

loopback node should be a strict hop was unnecessary.  The draft editor, 

Dong Jie, has agreed that this is the case and is checking that the 

removal of this constraint is acceptable to the other authors.  There is 

one other outstanding fix agreed for a nit. Otherwise all my last call 

comments have been cleared.  Thanks.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
s3.2, para 2, et seq:

The requirement that the hop before the loopback entity MUST be a strict 

hop is unnecessary.  The essential constraint (which is fully specified 

in the -04 draft) is that the entity at which loopback is to occur has 

to be uniquely identified (i.e., it can't be an 'abstract node' 

signifying (potentially) a group of nodes, such as an AS).  I have 

discussed this with Dong Jie, as editor, and he has agreed that the 

constraint is not needed.  A new version of the draft removing the 

constraint is in hand, pending agreement with the other authors and 

checking with the WG.

Nits/editorial comments:

s3.2, para 3:

   Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be
   less than 32, and for type values 1 and 2, the prefix length MUST be
   32 and 128 respectively.

   Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be

   less than 32 (i.e., able to identify a specific entity where a 

loopback can

   occur, see Section 4.3), and for type values 1 (IPv4 address) and 2 


   address), the prefix length MUST be 32 and 128 respectively.