Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.

The changes discussed below would reflect in the next update of the
document.

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 1:20 AM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> 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-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-??
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2022-08-12
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-17
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Draft is ready with nits for a Proposed Standard.
>
> Major issues: 0
>
> Minor issues: 1 (please see below)
>
> Nits/editorial comments: 4 (please see below)
>
> Minor:
> - Sec. 3.6: Note that Type is "TBD" here.  Should this be 1046, as shown in
>  Table 1?  (Or is the use of 1046 still under discussion?)
>

KT> This allocation is currently under "Expert Review" - at this point, it
is a suggested code point. This will hopefully be completed soon and we
will update the document once done.


>
> Nits:
> - I note that certain acronyms --- IGP, NLRI, ASLA --- are not defined.  I
> suspect that these are well-known in the community, hence need no
> definition.
> Just in case they are not, you may consider expanding the rare ones on
> first
> use.


KT> Ack. Fixed some of these acronyms that are not well-known on their
first use.


> - Sec. 1: s/Flexible algorithm is called so as/Flexible algorithm is so
> called because/


KT> Fixed


> - Sec. 2: s/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node
> is/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node is (are)/
>   Reason: symmetry in the sentence construction
>

KT> Fixed


> - Sec. 3.6: Is Figure 7 missing the trailing "//" for sub-TLV tpes?
>

KT> Fixed.

Thanks,
Ketan


>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>