Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10
review-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10-genart-lc-dunbar-2017-09-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-09-27
Requested 2017-09-13
Requested by Spencer Dawkins
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Tom Yu (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -10 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Eric Vyncke (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Russ White (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -13 by Eric Vyncke (diff)
Comments
These are the reviews requested by the document shepherd.
Review State Completed
Reviewer Linda Dunbar
Review review-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10-genart-lc-dunbar-2017-09-28
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/kyGtpNzzVfEXGFDupIwPClectSU
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2017-09-28
Review completed: 2017-09-28

Review
review-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10-genart-lc-dunbar-2017-09-28

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10 
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2017-09-19
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-28
IESG Telechat date: ??

Summary:

This document is written very clear and comprehensive. It is Ready. 
One single question remains open, it is minor.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Section 3.1.1, second paragraph states ".. every node along the path must be able to identify unambiguously the colored packets". 

I think the scheme should work even if some intermediate nodes don't support the proposed scheme. If every node supports the scheme, using Link based method, there shouldn't be any disorder of packets. Correct?

Section 3.1.1 last paragraph also states that the "how to choose the marking field ... is out of the scope". Besides the DSCP field, what other options there could be? Just curious. 

Nits/editorial comments:

Thanks, Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art