IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jonathan Harrison <jon.harrison@metaswitch.com> Mon, 09 August 2010 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jon.harrison@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5543A679F for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QU1qnvjCZzyY for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from enfiets2.dataconnection.com (enfiets2.dataconnection.com [192.91.191.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EB83A6B10 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk (172.18.10.27) by enfiets2.dataconnection.com (172.18.4.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:11:21 +0100
Received: from ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk ([172.18.10.27]) by ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk ([172.18.10.27]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:06:59 +0100
From: Jonathan Harrison <jon.harrison@metaswitch.com>
To: Tomonori TAKEDA <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:07:00 +0100
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: dratf-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt
Thread-Index: Acs3qRX9Tq8amzzETSmrQEQarku9AAAIvbbg
Message-ID: <11DE3EEC54A8A44EAD99D8C0D3FD7207A03E5C4410@ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk>
References: <4C5FCFF4.5020300@lab.ntt.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4C5FCFF4.5020300@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_11DE3EEC54A8A44EAD99D8C0D3FD7207A03E5C4410ENFIMBOX1adda_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:24:21 -0700
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te@tools.ietf.org>, "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: dratf-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:14:42 -0000

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:takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp] 
Sent: 09 August 2010 10:53
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te@tools.ietf.org
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email