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 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-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-16
Reviewer: Russ White
Review Date: 16 March 2024
IETF LC End Date: 5 April 2024
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D
Summary:
Choose from this list...
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.
Comments:
Beyond the two miro issues/questions below, the draft is readable and
well-structured.
Major Issues:
No major issues found.
Minor Issues:
I don't consider these blockers, just two questions.
In the abstract:
> described in RFC 5130.
My understanding is there should be no references in the abstract (?).
Is it still okay to mention a document that would normally include a
reference, or should this bit be removed, and a reference to the
pertinent RFC inserted later?
In the Introduction:
> The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given that
there is no strong requirement or use case. The specification is
included here for information.
I don't see the specification here (?). Maybe the second sentence should
be removed?
:-) /r
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
