Re: [Idr] QA review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03

"Susan Hares" <> Thu, 16 June 2016 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342EE12D0B0; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.149
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2JMKSBkHgOY; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 739F712D68B; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Stewart Bryant'" <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:57:28 -0400
Message-ID: <001e01d1c77a$d2d113b0$78733b10$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01D1C759.4BC03700"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIAWJ7bdNeFYEFKYJBCfC8w71vB+p+OREKw
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'Jonathan Hardwick' <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] QA review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:57:47 -0000



Thank you for your review.  We will talk with Alvaro ( our AD) regarding the longer list.




From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:25 PM
Cc: Jonathan Hardwick
Subject: [Idr] QA review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03


I was asked to do a QA review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03
This is a short, simple, well written draft that integrates two
existing technologies. 
It is ready to move onto its next stage.
The only (minor) observation that I would make, is that 
the front page author list is longer than is normally 
acceptable by the IESG. 
Assuming that all the TLVs that are needed are included, 
the draft looks about finished.
- Stewart