[Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review

Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com> Sun, 08 July 2018 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899F91310EE; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 15:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tF48uaPTT6D; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 15:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57E8B1310EB; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 15:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1009EACFA8FD5; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 23:41:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 23:41:15 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Sun, 8 Jul 2018 15:41:11 -0700
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review
Thread-Index: AQHUFwzESVuP/IhseEmo//2PfJJvzg==
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 22:41:09 +0000
Message-ID: <6FD38147-EA21-4336-B436-1072BF449DE2@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6FD38147EA214336B4361072BF449DE2huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/2S6JuNbLt-cHpajM9TtPvxSAJ50>
Subject: [Lsr] draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 Shepherd review
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2018 22:41:21 -0000

Dear authors,

I have done shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-id-04 as requested by LSR chairs. I’d like to thank all authors for their contributions on this document, also people who have reviewed this document and provided valuable comments and discussions.

The document is well written and ready for publication.

IDNITS check found a couple of nits:

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to
     mention RFC 2119.  The boilerplate contains a reference [BCP14], but that
     reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either.

  -- The document date (July 1, 2018) is 7 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'ISO10589' is defined on line 200, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization, "Intermed...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP14'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'

     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).