[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 21 December 2019 19:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains.all@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <157695706014.26403.6965507267186310970@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:37:40 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/hgcnaCFAtbgx8RbjNg4D0vMlrEo>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-09

Reviewer: Martin Duke
Review result: Ready with Nits

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.

This document is ready, and well-written. The examples were especially helpful
in following how things fit together. There aren't any specific transport layer
considerations that must be addressed to move forward; however, this mechanism
is partly intended to support multihomed transports, and it is not difficult to
imagine extensions that would help those transports by providing additional
information about each path. I hope these eventually follow in another document.

Nits:
- Second sentence of Sec 3: delete either "which" or "that"
- Sec 3.1 RA Message Header description: clarify that non-zero checksums "MUST
be ignored by the receiver and the rest of the option processed", if that is in
fact accurate. - Sec 3.1 it might be helpful to spell out RDNSS the first time
the acronym appears. - Sec 5.2. Can you add a sentence on why sending two RA
messages is RECOMMENDED?

[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-i… Martin Duke via Datatracker