[Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Fri, 15 April 2016 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B188712E07B; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RpNz6GFm1IUl; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6F3412DFAD; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id tz8so68833041obc.0; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=0SM0W5aitZ+YaJdYLpAx0RnNaWVxt6gtzUQ1hyUb22Q=; b=u0NzEMRb4IoNfd4xJM8M9/Rij6O9mshDO4+YsLpirmkbOavvqlu5XzCXkR3FgptHQj SrRXc2DPV0RDJCoI0DD5jsteBHRdaQ1T5B39tfDWAfMteDGa+TPhmxbFRBONRY1AnnGq kxRfIMcpmrHSSdSAEChDv2feytbz3XlZbSn1+ZIrckvHfwPFMyjPppB0zxaRnkiCmcop WIHLwh2cyACYNi4rcXKzbNOJTT3m+gihJygD51G03GOtqw5zR/896JuZE5DB/rZ0YWzd iC8O3ZdYHul3FkvGB32w0BaVMT7lbGbX0QpW6twEpOqXRpVAbwwsuUNQXpXkmPKhKS+U zZ2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=0SM0W5aitZ+YaJdYLpAx0RnNaWVxt6gtzUQ1hyUb22Q=; b=T23YQuKtJ4I2jkL2MM0HQNiL7HRTX55LSD/mhR5fxOe0wTuqWJxMfHU+frTiuPRUn6 FTqUeR1dmzaxNT6CVbJrwGNd9zO3Ge6eAxlpjllAEK4XfEoByV7q6ce6ck7WpJfSx+ib BTYApXiEDPkF098Wo65kD2aC7SV7j1r0Kf3rlkmTsuouWGZq12Zo0VhL1J4bFgOM4ihQ JstZDfTCcdZ8psFPAuoFE6GRAx4+ix0PMxrs7x7DHQ7+emz0Ty56xyuLAP87ClHTD7Ml XfZ6TjD+B2ueEV0JnUBxPyDlPntPMUKG4utmL0qH4X00fOTsSjOnm0vMFe455tvAG9Wi RGtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUJVspjMGJKoq3swZE4sctk+ZeKV2twtvg2ew8MMia0VgF9vbG+bKquAxOaBmZir24/3b0iHLmS+wYnBQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.56.170 with SMTP id b10mr10237450oeq.27.1460745446214; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.115.168 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:37:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdWGyyGZZqFGeDY5np42HYV9QhbtLija25938MkT6GxXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a0ec26dd53c05308a4d28"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/F_GTjmFlgoYgSbasLIi44hKd9hc>
Subject: [Isis-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:37:37 -0000

I'd like to thank Pushpasis, Hannes, Shraddha, Stephane, Bruno, Zhenbin,
Ebben, and Rafael for their work on draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.

I have done my customary AD review and have basically two substantive
comments.

First, this 14 page document has 9 authors listed.    This needs to be
reduced to no more than 5 and preferably the active and engaged editors who
will see the draft through the process to be an RFC.  If the authors have
difficulty, then I depend upon Chris Hopps (as the WG chair not listed as
an author) to help determine the relevant editor(s).

Because I am an optimist, I will put this into IETF Last Call and on the
IESG telechat for May 5.  If the number of authors issue isn't resolved
before it comes out of IETF Last Call, then I will have to pull the draft
and wait.

Second, the use-cases in this document are very similar to RFC 7777.  I
believe that some at least (e.g. the LFA calculation optimization) are in
fact identical.  Given the many similarities between ISIS and OSPF, that is
not at all surprising.   PLEASE, add at least an informative reference to
RFC 7777 and preferable simply list use-cases with the associated
reference.  Given that the examples are non-normative, I really do not see
any reason for this duplication!

Other than these issues, the document is well thought out, handles the
issues that were raised for RFC 7777 and provides what should be useful
functionality.

PLEASE make these changes so I don't have to stall the document (which has
been waiting long enough due to my backlog).

Thanks,
Alia