Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06-genart-lc-davies-2016-06-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-06-10
Requested 2016-05-27
Authors Fatai Zhang , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Matt Hartley , Zafar Ali , Cyril Margaria
I-D last updated 2016-06-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Paul E. Hoffman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-06-03
review-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06-genart-lc-davies-2016-06-03-00


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 treat these comments just
      


      like any other last call comments.
      





      For more information, please see the FAQ at
      







<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

.
      





      Document: 
      draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06.txt


      Reviewer: 
      Elwyn Davies


      Review Date:  
      2016/06/03


      IETF LC End Date: 
      2016/06/10


      IESG Telechat date:  2016/06/16





      Summary: 
      Ready.   This version contains some minor editorial updates from
      -04 which addressed all my comments during the previous last
      call.  Thanks for addressing the rather more substantial comments
      on -02.   There are a couple of trivial nits noted below.





    Major issues: 


    None





    Minor issues:
    


    None





    Nits/editorial comments:
    


    s4.2, Length field: It should be noted that the length is encoded as
    an unsigned binary integer.





    s4.2, Reserved field:  For consistency with the SRLG ID field
    description, the (duplicate) size of the field should be removed. 
    Thus in the description:


    s/This 15-bit field/This field/