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

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Thu, 13 December 2018 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
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 C3B46130DCC; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:30:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
To: <gen-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: <154468622674.21337.6779624997213312596@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 23:30:26 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FpsWNprhcw7zPqyM5RuQFduQIiU>
Subject: [Idr] Genart 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 07:30:27 -0000

Reviewer: Erik Kline
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


Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2018-12-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the meanings of
which are defined elsewhere.

Major issues:  [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a draft.
 I expect they'll get published together.

Minor issues: None.

Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some readability
cleanup, perhaps.

[1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow scan well
for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of

[2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication
mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly.  "are assumed to have
implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."?

I'm sure the editors will have better ideas.