[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-isis-layer2-08.txt
mike shand <mshand@cisco.com> Fri, 10 December 2010 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <mshand@cisco.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 568463A6C98 for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.613
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 zGli8-Ozde9F for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98583A6C88 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsYDAJvNAU2Q/khMgWdsb2JhbACfDoRzFQEBFiIpo3ubIYVKBIp5gxQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.59,324,1288569600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="71381285"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2010 14:50:37 +0000
Received: from [10.55.82.105] (dhcp-10-55-82-105.cisco.com [10.55.82.105]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBAEobPV026297; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:50:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4D023E3D.8060600@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:50:37 +0000
From: mike shand <mshand@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060905070508020707060900"
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-layer2.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-isis-layer2-08.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: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:49:26 -0000
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: draft-ietf-isis-layer2-08.txt Reviewer: Mike Shand Review Date: 2010-12-06 IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-14 Intended Status: proposed standard *Summary:* I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved 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: * General For compatibility with the TRILL IS-IS document, perhaps the occurrences of the phrase "Must be sent as (or set to) zero on transmission and is ignored on receipt." should be replaced by "MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt". In any case, the "must" should always be a "MUST". 2.1. The MAC-Reachability TLV Although it is obvious, perhaps it should say that the TLV can be carried multiple times in an LSP and in multiple LSPs. 6. References Should there not be references to the TRILL and 802.1aq IS-IS specific specs? *Nits: * Abstract This document specifies the IS-IS extensions necessary to support link state routing to any protocols running directly over layer 2. ->link state routing for any .... * *