Re: [RTG-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-isis-layer2-09

[Ayan Banerjee <[e-mail]>]

Ross,

Thanks much for the comments. Regarding the minor issues:

The MT-PORT-CAP-TLV with the suggested value is fine. The MAC-reachability
TLV was in conflict and version ­09 of this draft moved it to a
non-conflicting value.

Yes, this is accurate, the suggested reference is to
³draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16.txt². I am hoping that we can fix this
up in the RFC editor queue.

Thanks,
Ayan




On 1/2/11 4:53 PM, "Ross Callon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
> I have been asked to provide an additional Routing Directorate review 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. The purpose of the
> review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
> the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
> <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html>
> 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-isis-layer2-09.txt
> Reviewer: Ross Callon
> Review Date: 2011-01-02
> IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-14
> Intended Status: proposed standard
> Summary:
> I have only very minor concerns about this document. While these are of a
> nature that the RFC editor staff might be expected to identify and fix, you
> may nonetheless want to resolve these before publication.
> Comments: 
> The document is well written and structured, and generally conforms to the
> conventional definition of IS-IS TLVs.
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> Minor Issues:
>  
> Section 2.2, The bullet item ³Type: TLV Type, set to MT-PORT-CAP TLV 143
> [TBD].²
>  
> My understanding is that the value 143 was incorrectly picked (and overlaps
> with a different meaning of the same value). My understanding is also that the
> ³TBD² means that this was tentative. This will need to be corrected prior to
> publication, and you might want to add an RFC editor¹s note to this effect (or
> at least make sure that you check this during auth-48).
>  
>  
> Section 6.2, informative references. The third reference. I believe that this
> is to ³draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16.txt², which is in the RFC editor¹s
> queue waiting on a normative reference to this document. It would be less
> confusing to include the draft name. My understanding is that the RFC editor
> will then replace this with the RFC when both are published together.
>  
>