Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Ice,

Thank you for doing this review.

Regards,
Alia

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:31 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]> 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-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te
> Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands
> Review Date: 20-05-2016
> 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 well written and the use-case is very clear and useful to
> solve. Does this also solve the use-case for P2MP TE LSPs? If it does,
> maybe its good to mention this. I do think it has consequences as it
> requires an IPv4/IPv6 explicit NULL label, if you want to share IPv4 and
> IPv6 traffic over the same P2MP LSP.
>
>
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> Section 3.
> "For example, suppose the OSPFv2 instance …”
>
> This paragraph could benefit from a rewrite as I find it hard to follow
> what the intention is. I would also advise not to use real IP addresses as
> an example since the actual value does not matter. Better to say IPv4_1,
> IPv4_2,.. IMO.
>
> Nits:
>
> The acronym “ASON” is used in this document, but it is not spelled out
> what it stands for.
>
> Thx,
>
> Ice.