Hi Daniele,
please see inline (##PP)
On 29/05/2020 18:18, Daniele Ceccarelli via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review result: Has Nits
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-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: 2020-05-29
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standard Track
Summary:
The readibility of the draft has been significantly improved since my last
review (v07), mostly the abstract and the introduction, which now cleary state
what is the scope of the draft. I also appreciated the introduction of section
3 where a description of the existing solution is described.
Minor issues:
- Section 4.1 - Advantages with respect to RSVP-TE are described while the text
speaks about advantages with respect to RSVP-TE and GMPLS, probably it could be
changed into: advantages with respect to RSVP-TE when used in packet networks
and in GMPLS, something like this.
##PP
I can change to something like this:
"Advantages of Extended Link Opaque LSAs as defined in [RFC7684] for
OSPFv2 and Extended Router-LSAs [RFC8362] for OSPFv3 with respect to
advertisement of link attributes originally defined for RSVP-TE when
used in packet networks and in GMPLS"
Would that work?
>
- Section 5 - Why for the UDABM it doens't
say the value MUST be 0,4,8 but rather says "the legal values are" ? Is 8
octets future-proof enough? or conversely, if only 3 values are defined why do
we need 8 octects as option?
##PP
I have corrected that and use the same text (with MUST) for both SABM
and UDABM.
We did not limit the size at the beginning, but later due to limited
size of ISIS TLVs we limited it to 8 bytes to leave some space for the
attributes itself (draft-ietf-isis-te-app). We wanted to keep the
consistency between ISIS and OSPF which also helps BGP-LS. 8 octets
should be future-proof enough (64 apps).
>
>
- Section 8 - I really find it hard to understand
this small section.
##PP
this section says that Extended TE Metrics can be advertised per
application as well as application independent and suggests how that can
be done.
Typos:
- Unidirectional Link Dela [RFC7471]
##PP
fixed.
thanks,
Peter
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
