Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
review-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-12-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-01-23
Requested 2017-12-19
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Martin Vigoureux (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Sean Turner (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -13 by Tim Chown
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Joel Halpern
Review review-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-12-21
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/aScazzpEG7P_S1rjg0mnYAclOjc
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Almost Ready
Draft last updated 2017-12-21
Review completed: 2017-12-21

Review
review-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-12-21

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-12-21
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues:
     If a remote IPv4 address is needed in some cases for link identification, then does it not follow that for IPv6 usage with OSPFv3, a remote IPv6 address is also needed?

Minor issues:
    Why is the remote IPv4 address TLV being defined here?  It is not specific to link maintenance.  If this is the first place it is needed, could the text at least be clearer that this is a general purpose sub-TLV, not specific to the link maintenance indication?

Nits/editorial comments: 
    Given that this document specifically states that the problem to be solved is the desire to take a link out of service, I would strongly prefer that the option being defined by named to match the goal.  The link being modified is not overloaded.  Could this be renamed the link pending-maintenance indication or something along those lines?  I realize the working group knows what it means.  But the point of naming is so that folks looking later can understand or find the item.