Thanks for comment, addressing all of it in 4th version revision.
From:
Yingzhen Qu via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 9:44 PM
To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx <rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, mpls@xxxxxxxx <mpls@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
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
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-mldp-multi-topology-03
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 17 Feb 2024
IETF LC End Date: n/a
Intended Status: Standards Track
Result: Ready with Nits
The document is well rewritten and is ready for publication. The following
nits are for the authors to consider.
Nits (line numbers are from idnits):
133 just the default Topology. An instance of such a sub-topology is
Should this be "default topology"?
148 particular Topology to be used by mLDP have to become a two tuple
s/Topology/topology
s/two tuple/2-tuple ?
303 New MT MP FEC element SHOULD be used as the Tunnel identifier.
s/New/new
s/Tunnel identifier/Tunnel Identifier
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
