[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10

Bernard Aboba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 08 September 2020 21:03 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bernard Aboba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework.all@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <159959903736.12619.14196136151628965230@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 14:03:57 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/_qWgkCgR2hMg-lR_uqmKbyJwqXc>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10

Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review result: Ready

Subject: Transport Directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework

Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review result: Ready
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10
Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review Date: 2020-09-08
Intended Status: Informational

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary:
        This document is ready for publication.  The NIT in the security
        considerations section noted in the review of -08 has been fixed,
        but no other changes have been made to address the prior review
        comments.

Comments:
        The document is short and clearly written.  While it references
        the requirements in RFC 8372, it does not refer to them, so it's
        hard to verify whether this document does address those
        requirements (and how).

        Also, this document doesn't cover data collection or SFL allocation,
        so there is quite a bit that is out of scope. This makes me wonder
        whether an implementation of this specification could interoperate
        with other implementations based solely on this specification. 

Major Issues:
        No major issues found 

Minor Issues:

See previous review of -08.

[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-m… Bernard Aboba via Datatracker