[OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Sat, 12 August 2017 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AA0131D2C; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3LtQOPT07qKC; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (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 83F9E1241FC; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 26so2988651wrt.5; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LA6H8gYsHoWk5DtsA3/7WS6wYUky1u3XxmGiNz7Ngrs=; b=jNcmYpW50gj/9CYTzBeK9hhAduRo3XgQJZhRGLr8dgBBclV7NvFcgKtbEsWUVgANa5 x7Ja9CbVYxvye+qB33mY6OsyNRe+RQi/ivutf6aer/E3gsLWQYfOlDjsDLhX3qsXSmhi wISw2Bt2uIaQ3qA2Fj3SpU/vT1/RR/bTQQcuxiWfoE4JSelVgmETOdzQ0aIIDSm9wRsO IihZpxuVVftPBHqArc2DVN4ZVzsuXiE8nPqF62/lddtq57NzPFk5FXOL43bOZLyMFMSk 4Fgn2v6koVBMzvcy3lvpFNPLZhCEFQ6rOwJrBhnp/2x81C0f3XzN3RKTYer2ikZ/7CtT Nprg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=LA6H8gYsHoWk5DtsA3/7WS6wYUky1u3XxmGiNz7Ngrs=; b=GKpPPHykSJkhhsuRq1sBOQfqYOnk0FDaVqSXrH461Ii3U25G+bRjCH/z51fdPAP7mJ Q2zjnWYYzC67ERyaEAuHBIarJQROujGJfiDU2Hpjl2qB7/oLBk2d6/ELtH0tyammTnOh i907JSNt+ArkTP1vYWjCWfg2Jb7DxQViUjqPwoUE1GK7tgVUjQC4ryGXaEryLoYjX3qh rj2IEax6S2up56ShwpqirE/Nn+JJWO/Qm+cITiflKeivB8blxbtrCJ3AQAcsGRNwjkz0 R1k642ISS4xtHiEoWdF5dVV0DWSlavfdmKdDXBAZa6pJnYsJQP5Wzrz+K5HQe51rLKqA u6wg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5goNqhJ/9kkTKZv6TfGPeRPdAxMNsrHvpEep1BfOtInTRSpuVky rKjGOePuAb+5zws4n+g0xpTW8S31pxpCP3o=
X-Received: by 10.223.128.163 with SMTP id 32mr11161000wrl.99.1502505745813; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.154.108 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 22:42:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdRLYXn=uaVP1PsqMpA3go5XKi=-7w5+cLLeq4AT=bO5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org, OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c069d564094e305568561de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/O4GLJLaHgLQczynYaFyBwlpYQOc>
Subject: [OSPF] AD review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 02:42:33 -0000

As is customary, I have done another AD review
of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.  First, I'd like to thank the
authors for their work and the improvement.

I have one minor issue on the IANA section.

For the current FCFS space, I think it would be better to have
"Specification Required" so that there's a place to look to understand what
sub-TLVs are included.
If the WG is happy with FCFS, that is fine too.

I'm asking for an IETF Last Call and will put this on the telechat on Aug
31.

Regards,
Alia