[Lsr] Early review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 29 June 2018 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2093A130E0E; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MTysAj0PoVi4; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E4A5130E09; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (c83-250-142-104.bredband.comhem.se [83.250.142.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60CA718015AD; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:07:38 +0200 (CEST)
To: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, lsr@ietf.org
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <22364892-c6be-d014-4227-2ce685b9e8c5@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:07:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/yrud-iUlzZMDXiUnSsstC5NNY-E>
Subject: [Lsr] Early review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id
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: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:07:46 -0000

To:

foo-wg-chairs@…;
draft-foo-name.all@…;
Cc:

rtg-dir@…;
foo-wg-mailing-list;
Subject:

RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-03.txt

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this 
draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id/

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, 
perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for 
publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time 
during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of 
the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.

As this document is close to working group last call, my focus for the 
review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. 
Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call 
comments.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-03.txt
Reviewer: Loa Andersson
Review Date: 2018-06-29
Intended Status: Standards track

Summary:

No issues found.

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

I have gathered the nits in a word file that has been sent to the
authors and chairs. I also recommend that the authors take a look at
my proposed change to the IANA section.

Nits:

The nits found is that the Abstract is too raw, but as sufficient info
are available in the Introduction, this should be a simple editorial
change.

There is one sentence at the end of section that I think is ambigious.
But I leave it to the authors to update if they think it is necessary.

LSA is actually not a well-know abbreviation, and should be expanded.
However, I think it should be well-know, since this is within the
purview of the LSR chairs, I leave to them to take necessary actions
if they see fit.

I have suggested some editorial changes to the IANA considerations.

/Loa
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64