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 Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2018-12-12
Requested 2018-11-28
Authors Les Ginsberg, Stefano Previdi, Qin Wu, Jeff Tantsura, Clarence Filsfils
Draft last updated 2018-12-13
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 Yoshifumi Nishida
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15-tsvart-lc-nishida-2018-12-13
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 18)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-12-13


This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary: Ready with Nits

1: The TLV formats in the draft look identical with RFC7471 except the value in Type field.
     it would be better to clarify this points so that the readers who are familiar with RFC7471 can interpret them easily.
     I am also wondering if the format figures of TLV are necessary when the same figures are already presented in RFC7471.

2: There is no guidance for default values such as measurement interval in the draft. If these values should also be inherited from other draft, it should be stated.

3: (Editorial) The length of Type filed in the figures look 15 bits length. But, I believe it should be 16 bits.