Early Review of draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te-05
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 07)|
|Team||Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)|
|Draft last updated||2016-05-27|
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by IJsbrand Wijnands
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Manav Bhatia (diff)
|Reviewed rev.||05 (document currently at 07)|
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, and sometimes on special request. 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-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands Review Date: 20-05-2016 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This document is well written and the use-case is very clear and useful to solve. Does this also solve the use-case for P2MP TE LSPs? If it does, maybe its good to mention this. I do think it has consequences as it requires an IPv4/IPv6 explicit NULL label, if you want to share IPv4 and IPv6 traffic over the same P2MP LSP. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: Section 3. "For example, suppose the OSPFv2 instance …” This paragraph could benefit from a rewrite as I find it hard to follow what the intention is. I would also advise not to use real IP addresses as an example since the actual value does not matter. Better to say IPv4_1, IPv4_2,.. IMO. Nits: The acronym “ASON” is used in this document, but it is not spelled out what it stands for. Thx, Ice.