[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 27 October 2015 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F261ACE5F; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GCUpnDiwPLm; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7DCC1ACE5C; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-164-199-31.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.164.199.31]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t9RJDeto065073 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:13:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-164-199-31.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.164.199.31] claimed to be unnumerable.local
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-isis-route-preference.all@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <562FCCE0.8040909@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:13:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ivM4e6zy_Af4COUZtkun04o0QuY>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:13:47 -0000

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-isis-route-preference
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 27Oct2015
IETF LC End Date: 30Oct2015
IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready for publication as Proposed Standard

This document reads easily despite most of it being detailed lists. I 
have no objection to it moving forward, but I would like to check one thing:

The sparsity of detail at the end of section 2, where you call out 
potential interoperability issues and suggest that "implementers may 
wish to support transition mechanisms" is concerning.  It might be worth 
being explicit here about the interoperability issues, and what a 
transition mechanism might look like, particularly if there's a chance 
of having to deal with a peer that won't implement what's described in 
this draft?

Did the group consider defining a couple of new code points and 
deprecating these two, to avoid that transition issue?