[Idr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04
Christian Hopps via Datatracker <email@example.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 20:15 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FB4120800; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Christian Hopps via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Reply-To: Christian Hopps <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:15:49 -0700
Subject: [Idr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:15:50 -0000
Reviewer: Christian Hopps Review result: Ready Hello, I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04 Reviewer: Christian Hopps Review Date: 9/25/2019 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: - No issues found. This documents is ready to proceed to the IESG. Comments: - This is a minor update (increasing the valid length fields values by 1 bit) to the functionality in RFC 8203 that seems well justified by the new Appendix B. - The field name "Error Code" changed from RFC 8203 to "Error code" which seems to be a superfluous diff. If so, I suggest reverting it if the opportunity presents itself during final editing. I don't think it warrants a new version of the document though.
- [Idr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc82… Christian Hopps via Datatracker