Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-12-12
Requested 2018-11-28
Authors Les Ginsberg, Stefano Previdi, Qin Wu, Jeff Tantsura, Clarence Filsfils
Draft last updated 2018-12-12
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Early review of -13 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Erik Kline (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -15 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Erik Kline
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15-genart-lc-kline-2018-12-12
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 18)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-12-12


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


Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2018-12-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the meanings of which are defined elsewhere.

Major issues:  [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a draft.  I expect they'll get published together.

Minor issues: None.

Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some readability cleanup, perhaps.

[1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow scan well for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of resources"?

[2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly.  "are assumed to have implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."?

I'm sure the editors will have better ideas.