Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-08-13
Requested 2015-07-30
Authors Peter Psenak, Hannes Gredler, Rob Shakir, Wim Henderickx, Jeff Tantsura, Acee Lindem
Draft last updated 2015-08-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suresh Krishnan 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06-genart-lc-krishnan-2015-08-13
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 13)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2015-08-13


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 General Area director. Document editors and WG chairs
should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2015-08-13
IETF LC End Date: 2015-08-13

Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication as Proposed Standard 
but there are some minor issues that need to be addressed.

* Section 2

* In the packet format described in Figure "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix 
Opaque LSA" the numbers 9, 10 and 11 are shown in a field. I think it 
would be better if these are replaced by the text "LS type" as it is the 
actual field. This will provide consistency with the rest of the figure. 
The following text can then describe the allowed LS types as 9,10, and 11.


* Padding of TLVs. I am assuming that the TLVs are padded using zero 
octets. If so, please state it explicitly.

* Section 2.1.

* In the packet format the "Address Prefix" field is marked as variable 
length when it actually *is not*. It is always encoded as 32 bits long, 
right? If so please the "(variable)" designation needs to be removed
for the Address Prefix.

* Shouldn't there be some IANA instructions for further extensions to 
the Flags field in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV? Or is this field not 
expected to be extended?

* IANA Considerations

* The Opaque LSA Options types used by this document (7 & 8) seem to be 
wrongly entered into the IANA registry and are pointing to 
[draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] instead of this draft. It 
is probably worth taking this up during the IANA check.