Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: dratf-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt

[Tomonori TAKEDA <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the update.

A few more comments (for nits). I think Section 6 (IPv4/IPv6 Migration)
is added from the version on the IETF site, which is a bit hard to
understand for me.


Section 2:
s/RFC 2119/[RFC2119]


Section 6:
Currently,
   The IS-IS extensions described in this document allow the routing of
   GMPLS LSPs using IPv6 addressing through an IS-IS network.

How about,
  The IS-IS extensions described in this document allow exchanging
  MPLS/GMPLS TE information in LSPs using IPv6 addressing through an
  IS-IS network.

Also, I would suggest to spell out LSP (Link State Protocol Data Unit)
at its first usage (Section 3.1.1), since some people may think LSP as
Label Switched Path.


Section 6:
   Migration of LSPs from IPv4 to IPv6 is an issue for GMPLS signaling
   and is outside the scope of this document.

I am not sure what this means. Are you saying that migration of LSPs
from IPv4 addressing to IPv6 addressing is a matter of TE database,
which can be further used to build ERO in MPLS/GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling?


Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda

Jonathan Harrison wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the useful comments.  
> 
> For section 3.1.1, I agree that it is better to consider unique-local (as per RFC 4193) than the deprecated site-local addresses.
> 
> As for the nits, I'm happy to change the ordering so that section 1 is the overview, which is followed by the requirements words, and I'm happy to add RFC 2119 as a normative reference.
> 
> I've attached an updated version of the draft with these markups (plus some updated contact details).  Could you please let me know if you think any further changes are required?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomonori TAKEDA [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 09 August 2010 10:53
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RtgDir review: dratf-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt
> 
> 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. 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
> 
> 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: dratf-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt
> Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
> Review Date: 9 August 2010
> IETF LC End Date: Unknown
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has some minor
> issues to be considered before publication.
> 
> 
> Comments:
> This document is well written and easy to read. I have several nits and
> one minor question.
> 
> 
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> 
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> Section 3.1.1:
> Global, site-local and link-local addresses are mentioned. Have you
> considered that site-local addresses have been deprecated by RFC 3879?
> Have you considered unique local addresses in RFC 4139?
> 
> 
> Nits:
> 
> - I would suggest to add RFC 2119 to normative references.
> 
> - Usually, the main body starts with Introduction section, followed by
> Requirement Words. I would suggest that Section 2 (Overview) is moved up
> to Section 1, followed by Requirement Words (or Requirement Words can be
> a separate section).
> 
> 
> Tomonori Takeda
> 


-- 
Tomonori TAKEDA
NTT Network Service Systems Lab.
Phone: [phone]