[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10
Bernard Aboba via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 08 September 2020 21:03 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660AC3A1478; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Bernard Aboba via Datatracker <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Reply-To: Bernard Aboba <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 14:03:57 -0700
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-10
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 21:03:57 -0000
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 firstname.lastname@example.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