Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03
review-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03-opsdir-lc-hares-2015-09-30-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-09-29 | |
| Requested | 2015-09-17 | |
| Authors | Alia Atlas , John Drake , Spencer Giacalone , Stefano Previdi | |
| I-D last updated | 2015-09-30 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Christian Huitema (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Susan Hares |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2015-09-30 |
review-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03-opsdir-lc-hares-2015-09-30-00
draft: I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Status: Review with nits (very minor nits) General comments: Document is precise, well-written, and understandable to those who have read the documents this draft depends on. There is not a specific operations section, but this mechanisms would be included in a PCE or other calculation engine. This reviewer does not see any reason why additional text needs to be utilized. Individuals who write such algorithms and programs are utilizing these mechanisms to provide better paths. Nit #1: section 1.2 EF and AF abbreviations are not spelled out. Unless these are part of the RFC editor’s abbreviations, it should be spelled out. Nit #2: section 2.3.1 /Link Los sub-TLV/Link Loss sub-TLV/ /Sub-TLV[I-D-ietf.isis-te-metric-extensions]/sub-TLV [I-D-ietf.isis-te-metric-extensions]