Hi Min , On 5/17/17, 5:22 AM, "Min Ye" <amy.yemin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands >Review result: Has Issues I think the result is “No Issues”. Thanks, Acee > >Hi All, > >I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this >draft. >https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt > >Summary: > >This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow > >additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA. >Overall, well written, easy to understand what the objective is for >this draft. > >Comments and Questions: > >This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would >almost argue to call it OSPFv4.. > >Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that >would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to >extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a >better >way to achieve the goal. > >Minor Issues and Nits: >none. > >Thx, > >Ice. > >