Re: [mpls] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-06.txt

Thanks!

Do I need to fix these and post a new version, or will the RFC Editor
take care of them?

eric

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Tomonori Takeda
<takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing
> ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-06.txt
> Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
> Review Date: 2 May 2014
> IETF LC End Date: 6 May 2014
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
>
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
> be considered prior to publication.
>
> Comments:
> This document is short, clearly written and easy to understand.
> This document writes protocol extensions for OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE, which is
> straight-forward.
>
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
> No minor issues found.
>
> Nits:
>
> o Abstract
>   It says:
>   "the Administrative Group sub-TLV of the Link TLV"
>   Precisely speaking, I think this should be:
>   "the Administrative Group sub-TLV of the Link TLV for OSPFv2/OSPFv3
>    and of the Extended IS Reachability TLV for ISIS"
>   Or this could simply be:
>   "the Administrative Group sub-TLV"
>
> o Section 1, 3rd paragraph
>   s/vaues/values
>
> o Section 2
>   "This document defines a sub-TLV of the Link TLV for both OSPF
>    [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305] ... "
>    Same as above (comment for Abstract).
>
> o Section 2.2
>   "the existing Administrative Group TLVs" should be:
>   "the existing Administrative Group sub-TLVs".
>
> o Section 2.3.2, 3rd paragraph
>   "as the assumption is than an unadvertised bit is set to 0"
>   I guess "than" should be "that".
>
> Thanks,
> Tomonori Takeda
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls