MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:26:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CAGS6MpAvirQ=0ab+S_dVv1UzDv9xCD_0msBA0GXR5tX8cc-4Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Manav Bhatia <manav@ionosnetworks.com>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c122f241178820534e55d97
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/FIkkMvZYHFQdRhcoJSQE5K_N-WU>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>,
 draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te@tools.ietf.org, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: [OSPF] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te
Precedence: list

--94eb2c122f241178820534e55d97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te
Reviewer: Manav Bhatia
Review Date: 10/06/2016
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

The draft proposes something that prima facie appears reasonable -- using a
single OSPF instance to set up TE LSPs for both v4 and v6.

Comments:

The draft is quite simple and i see no technical issues. However, i would
like this to go through the regular IETF WG process before it gets pushed
to the publication pipeline.

Cheers, Manav

--94eb2c122f241178820534e55d97
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hello,<br><br>I have been selected as the Routing Director=
ate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all ro=
uting or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IES=
G review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to=
 provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Rout=
ing Directorate, please see <a href=3D"http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/=
trac/wiki/RtgDir">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir</a><=
br><br>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 dis=
cussion or by updating the draft.<br><br>Document: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-t=
e<br>Reviewer: Manav Bhatia<br>Review Date: 10/06/2016<br>IETF LC End Date:=
 date-if-known <br>Intended Status: Standards Track =C2=A0 <br><br>Summary:=
 No issues found. This document is ready for publication.<br><br>The draft =
proposes something that prima facie appears reasonable -- using a single OS=
PF instance to set up TE LSPs for both v4 and v6. <br><br>Comments: <br><br=
>The draft is quite simple and i see no technical issues. However, i would =
like this to go through the regular IETF WG process before it gets pushed t=
o the publication pipeline.<br><br>Cheers, Manav</div>

--94eb2c122f241178820534e55d97--