[Idr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 13 December 2018 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <nishida@wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FEA6130EC5; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:05:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yoshifumi Nishida <nishida@wide.ad.jp>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154469190410.2732.7123292408392294701@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 01:05:04 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/61MQvwcpPtTt3v_r4PpDr2pADnc>
Subject: [Idr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:05:04 -0000

Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
Review result: Ready with Nits

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary: Ready with Nits

1: The TLV formats in the draft look identical with RFC7471 except the value in
Type field.
     it would be better to clarify this points so that the readers who are
     familiar with RFC7471 can interpret them easily. I am also wondering if
     the format figures of TLV are necessary when the same figures are already
     presented in RFC7471.

2: There is no guidance for default values such as measurement interval in the
draft. If these values should also be inherited from other draft, it should be
stated.

3: (Editorial) The length of Type filed in the figures look 15 bits length.
But, I believe it should be 16 bits.