Hi Mohit,
Speaking as document shepherd. See inline.
On 4/24/20, 3:39 AM, "Mohit Sethi via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-11
Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
Review Date: 2020-04-24
IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-05
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: This document specifies how Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and Entropy
Readable Label Depth (ERLD) are advertised using IS-IS. For advertising ELC, a
flag in the Prefix Attribute Flags is used. For advertising ERLD, a Node MSD
Advertisement is used.
Major issues:
Minor issues: The document is short and straightforward. For someone like me
who is not familiar with the routing area, would it make sense to explain why
signalling ELC information with MPLS is not sufficient (or what are the
benefits of advertising with IS-IS)?
I guess I'm wondering what you mean "signaling ELC information with MPLS"? With segment routing, the IGPs can be the only choice for signaling ELC capability. I don’t believe this comment requires any action.
Thanks,
Acee
Nits/editorial comments:
In section 3, "used as the ECL Flag" should perhaps be "used as the ELC Flag"?
In section 4, "IANA for EARLD-MSD" should perhaps be "IANA for ERLD-MSD"?
In section 6, "ECL Flag (E-flag)." should perhaps be "ELC Flag (E-flag)."?
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
