Early Review of draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00
review-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00-rtgdir-early-shand-2014-11-13-00
Review
review-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00-rtgdir-early-shand-2014-11-13
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for
draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference-00.txt
The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to
improve
the quality of RTG Area documents as they pass through the IETF
process.
This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll.
Summary
This document serves a useful purpose in clarifying the existing
confusion, and potential interoperability issues, caused by the
piecemeal introduction over a period of time, with varying degrees
of rigour, of various uses for route preferences. As such it seems
a good candidate for adoption as a WG document.
My slight concern is how we manage the process of ensuring that
people referencing RFC5302, 5 and 8 are correctly directed to this
document and understand where this document overrides requirements
in the earlier documents and where it merely clarifies, given the
mixture of clarifications and correction that it contains.
Comments
From a technical point of view I find the document ready to be
adopted as a working group
document.
I'm wondering whether a tabular form of presentation might be
easier to assimilate than the rather verbose and repetitive
textual descriptions.
e.g.
type | L1/L2 LSP | TLV |up/down bit | Extern bit | comments
L1 intra-area routes | 236/237 | L1 | 0 | 0 | These IPv6 prefixes are directly connected to the advertising router.
Major Issues
No major issues found.
Minor Issues
Route preferences. Does it need to be specified that the route
preferences are listed in order of most preferred first, just to
be absolutely clear?
Nits
There is inconsistency between the use of "zero" and "0" and
between "one" and "1".
Is there a reason why the external bit is spelled with an upper
case X as eXternal?