Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 November 2015 05:06 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <563D28C7.5080406@gmail.com>
References: <563D28C7.5080406@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:36:35 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn5pOVvELZK1L5o=nnvCtx2gL1d5EqF-yuNLSi+wQfpPKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141bc5c0e680705246506de"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cOqGVmev3uUP0N4-v_LOlzRNSKk>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "dhruv.dhody@huawei.com" <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03
Precedence: list

Hi Brian,

Let me apologies again for keeping you waiting for a reply.

The reply to this would be the same as "Gen-ART telechat review of
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03" sent today.

We can continue the discussion on that thread?

Regards,
Dhruv

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2015-11-07
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-09
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> Summary: Ready with issues
> --------
>
> Comment:
> --------
>
> Needs to be approved along with draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence.
>
> Major Issues:
> -------------
>
> > 3.2.1.  Autonomous system
> >
> >   [RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number.
> >
> >   To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following
> >   subobject is defined:
> >
> >      0                   1                   2                   3
> >      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >     |L|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
> >     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >     |                          AS-ID (4 bytes)                      |
> >     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> I don't understand why that is considered Experimental. It seems like
> a major defect in RFC 3209 that needs to be fixed on the standards
> track as soon as possible, independently of the present draft.
>
> Minor Issues:
> -------------
>
> It would be nice to see a suggested timescale for the experiment in
> section 1.1.
> How many years before this document should be evaluated?
>
>

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Brian E Carpenter
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Dhruv Dhody