Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-13
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Deborah Brungard No Objection
Alissa Cooper No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Comment (2020-05-19 for -12)
Two editorial nits: ** Section 3. Editorial. s/ When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302],/When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels [RFC5302],/ ** Section 4. Figure 2. The text says that “A MSD-Type Code 2 has been assigned by IANA”, but Figure 2 says “MSD-Type=TBD2”.
Martin Duke No Objection
Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2020-05-31)
Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point that were left after that, as well as my comments.
Erik Kline No Objection
Comment (2020-05-17 for -12)
No email
send info
send info
[[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "(e.g., SR-MPLS [...]," appears to lack a closing parenthesis.
Murray Kucherawy No Objection
Comment (2020-05-05 for -12)
What Barry said. Also, I presume your AD has approved going over the usual limit of five authors.
Warren Kumari No Objection
Comment (2020-05-20 for -12)
No email
send info
send info
I had the weirdest sense of deja vu when reviewing this document -- enough that I went back to see if it had been on a previous telechat -- and then realized that it was the IS-IS version of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc :-)
Barry Leiba No Objection
Comment (2020-05-05 for -12)
Just a few editorial nits: — Section 1 — In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to Nit: this needs a comma after the citation. — Section 3 — originator. Similarly in a multi-domain network, the identity of the Nit: “Similarly” needs a comma after it. When a router propagates a prefix between ISIS levels ([RFC5302], it Nit: remove the open parenthesis. an Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) is outside of the scope Nit: the abbreviation “ASBR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s no reason to include it. — Section 4 — A new MSD-type [RFC8491], called ERLD-MSD is defined to advertise the Nit: 8491 capitalizes the “T” in “MSD-Type”. Nit: there needs to be a comma after “ERLD-MSD”.
Martin Vigoureux No Objection
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Comment (2020-05-11 for -12)
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. Like other ADs, I wonder why the IS-IS and OSPF are separate documents. Please find below one NIT. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == NIT == -- section 4 -- The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)
Magnus Westerlund No Objection
Robert Wilton No Objection
Comment (2020-05-19 for -12)
Hi, Same comment as for equivalent OSPF draft. Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement? If so, is that already being worked or, or planned work for the WG? Regards, Rob