Mach Chen <mach.chen=40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06 Reviewer: Mach Chen Review Date: 2024-11-11 IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: • I have some major and minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: • The document is well written and easy to read it. Major Issues: 1. The definitions of the 'Key' for TLVs and sub-TLVs vary, and this document does not specify the Key for each MP-TLV. Therefore, it may result in interoperability issues if implementations use different information to construct the 'Key.' Given Section 8.2 listed all existing applicable MP-TLVs, it's essential to specify the Key for each of those MP-TLVs, either within this document or in a separate document to which this document should provide a normative reference.
Hi Mach, I'm curious if you also followed along on the extensive discussions on this exact issue on the LSR list or not? Understanding your exposure to this would help with how to address any remaining confusion about this directly in the draft. The WG explicitly decided it was inappropriate to have this document re-define every "key" for every possible TLV as these "key" values are already defined by the documents that define the TLV; however, documenting that choice and the reasoning better may still be necessary. So my question is this: were you following along with this discussion in the LSR WG and find yourself disagreeing with the WG decision, or is this entire topic new to you? Thanks, Chris.
Minor Issues: 1. The MP-TLV Capability Advertisement is defined as a node-based capability rather than on a per-codepoint basis, which limits its usefulness. In some cases, it may even be misleading if operators just rely on this capability to assume MP-TLV support. Therefore, it would be preferable to either remove this capability advertisement or redefine it to operate on a per-codepoint basis. Best regards, Mach
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
