[Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12

Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 09 May 2017 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAEE129B4B; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
To: int-dir@ietf.org
Cc: manet@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149431964538.10555.11264594833770083998@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 01:47:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/5SfU5dwP6jJppT9EcvwrHwcV0j4>
Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 08:47:25 -0000

Reviewer: Zhen Cao
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments
just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors
and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have
been received. For more details of the INT directorate, see
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>.

I believe this document is ready to publish almost as it is. 

One issue I found during my review lies in Sec. 8.4 where IPv4 loose
source routing being discussed.  To avoid unnecessary fragmentation, I
am suggesting the following wording change: 

S/  If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS
      (Section 5), only the "key" routers in the path are kept...
/  If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS 
      (Section 5), or the adding of source routing header exceeds the
path MTU, 
only the "key" routers in the path are kept...

Cheers,
Zhen