Yoshi - Thanx for the review. Replies inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 1:05 AM > To: tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: idr@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15 > > Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review > team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the > IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. > > Summary: Ready with Nits > > 1: The TLV formats in the draft look identical with RFC7471 except the value in > Type field. > it would be better to clarify this points so that the readers who are > familiar with RFC7471 can interpret them easily. I am also wondering if > the format figures of TLV are necessary when the same figures are already > presented in RFC7471. > [Les:] The draft says: Section 2 " TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]." Then in each subsequent sub-section 2.x both RFC 7471 and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis are explicitly referenced. The TLV formats need to be presented here since these are the BGP-LS encodings, which are similar to but NOT identical to the IGP specific encodings (for example IS-IS encoding uses an 8-bit type/length). > 2: There is no guidance for default values such as measurement interval in > the > draft. If these values should also be inherited from other draft, it should be > stated. > [Les:] This is not within the purview of this draft. All this draft is doing is defining the encodings for the BGP-LS advertisements which are essentially copies of what the IGPs are advertising. > 3: (Editorial) The length of Type filed in the figures look 15 bits length. > But, I believe it should be 16 bits. > [Les:] Indeed. Good catch. I will fix this. Les
