Re: [Idr] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-16.txt

Mach:

Thank you for the routing directorate report.  Thank you for the catch on the RFC2119 language. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:51 AM
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: idr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-error-handling@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-16.txt

Hello, 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-16.txt 
Reviewer: Mach Chen 
Review Date: Nov. 12, 2014 
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: 
 This document is well written and easy to understand. I found some nits and one minor issue that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments: 
 None.

Major Issues: 
 No major issues found. 

Minor Issues: 
 Section 7.3
 "The attribute is considered malformed if its length is not 4 [RFC4271]."

 If only according to RFC4271, this is the case, but seems that RFC5549 allows that the length of Nexthop attribute can be either 4 or 16.

Nits: 
 Section 2.
 s/to handling/to handle

 in the last bullet of the 4 approaches.
 s/must not/MUST NOT

Best regards,
Mach

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr