Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
review-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06-genart-lc-resnick-2017-08-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-28
Requested 2017-08-14
Authors Xiaohu Xu, Bruno Decraene, Robert Raszuk, Luis Contreras, Luay Jalil
Draft last updated 2017-08-21
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Joseph Touch (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06-genart-lc-resnick-2017-08-21
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 09)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2017-08-21

Review
review-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06-genart-lc-resnick-2017-08-21

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-08-21
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-28
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31

Summary: Almost Ready

The content of this document is fine. However, I think the IANA registry stuff is not ready.

Major issues:

I think the registrations other than for Endpoint and Color are incorrect and should not be in this document. Certainly the "Reference" field for 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 should not be "This document", given that the syntax and semantics for these values are defined in other documents. I also think that having things in this registry which are also used by the BGP registry is asking for trouble: You wouldn't want the references for the two registries to get out of sync. This seems like a mess to me. Would it be possible for IANA to simply rename the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry to "BGP and OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs", and share the registry between the two protocols? Then have this (and other) document(s) add values to that registry. That way, the documents that actually define the codepoints can be put into the registry.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits/editorial comments: 

In section 7.1, please add:

   [RFC Editor: Please replace "TBD1" in section 3 with the registry value allocated by IANA, and remove this note].

That will save them from hunting.