Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09

Thanks for your review. Do the authors have any comments on these observations?

Jari

On 29 Dec 2014, at 22:13, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09
> Reviewer: Martin Thomson
> Review Date: 2014-12-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-24 (nice)
> IESG Telechat date: 2015-01-08
> 
> Summary: Good for PS with some minor issues.
> 
> Observations:
> 
> I find it a little disappointing that measurement techniques are so
> nebulously defined.  Values are measured over "a period" using "some
> method, which might be RFC 6374".  The "A" bit threshold is "a
> configured value".  That means that a consumer of this information has
> to take a lot on faith.  I have to assume that this is because we
> can't do better.
> 
> Minor issues:
> Please ensure that all the field descriptions include some textual
> indication of the size of the field.  Type and length are always 16
> bits each, so those can be assumed from RFC 3630.
> 
> As above, please specify the specific IEEE 754 floating point format,
> i.e., "single precision".  Otherwise you have to look at the figures
> to work out how many bits to use for the value and figures should be
> strictly informational.
> 
> Nits:
> Section 10 is missing a period.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09

Attachment: signature.asc