Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review result: Has Issues 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 the IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to assist the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-mpls-lspping-norao-06 Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review Date: 2024-02-05 Intended Status: Standard Tracks ## Summary This document is basically ready for publication but has issues that should be considered prior to publication. The draft retires the use of Router Alert Option (RAO) for LSP Ping. I have some concerns but they are easy enough to resolve and the document should be ready to go once those are handled! ## Major - It would be incorrect to put RFC 7056 (which is being made historic) in the "updates:" list at the top of the page. Note that, one needs to follow the "status-change" document process to mark the RFC as historic which should be triggered by the AD. The job of this I-D is to articulate the reasons why the RFC7506 should be made historic. Update section 1 and section 3 accordingly. Section 3 could list or refer to existing sections on why RFC 7506 should be historic. - RFC 8029 includes text outside of sections 2.1 and 2.2 that mentions router alert. For instance, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8029#section-4.5 tells how to handle it with "MUST" when we now are asking implementation to ignore it - ```` If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an IPv4 UDP packet with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain the Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or 69 [RFC7506] for IPv6. If the reply is sent over an LSP, the topmost label MUST in this case be the Router Alert label (1) (see [RFC3032]). ```` - If you do update the text, note that there is an erratum https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7639. Please do a check of all other instances of "alert" as well in RFC 8029. ## Minor - Section 6, instead of a normative reference to the IANA URL, it would be better to name the IANA registry that needs to be updated and then optionally have an informative reference to the IANA URL. ## Nits - Expand LSP in the tile - Expand on first use - OAM (it is not expanded on first use) - Some instances of RFC XXXX without the reference [RFCXXXX] in the body. - s/ALL/all/ Thanks! Dhruv -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
