Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-17
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 27)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||Ops Directorate (opsdir)|
|Requested by||Alia Atlas|
|Draft last updated||2017-07-02|
Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Stig Venaas
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by John Drake (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -19 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -22 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
I just did an AD review with a number of issues, so you may find it helpful to wait for an updated draft if it comes quickly. Regardless, having a second solid review would be very helpful. For me, this review took a long time & turned into scanning through many of the related SPRING documents.
|Reviewed rev.||17 (document currently at 27)|
|Review result||Has Issues|
Status: Almost-ready: Minor concerns on error reporting additions. General Comment: One of the things which must have been worked on by 3 implementations is the error reporting for overlapping prefixes or an erroneous TLV. I simply could not find it. As an OPS-DIR review, I look for clearly specified error reporting for protocol errors and provisioning errors. If it is another document, the authors could simply reference it. If it is not there, please summarize what the implementers have done already. No need to change working code, but documenting this will help a new implementation provide the same error reporting. I have given general guidance here, and will review the specifics that the main editors suggest. However, it really needs to be addressed in the specification so new implementation may provide this in put. Sue Hares ========== Editorial nits: 1) Page 5 – please provide RI abbreviation so that page 6 and can utilize it. In last paragraph: Before: /SR-Algorithm TLV in the Router Information LSA with/ To: /SR-Algorithm TLV in the Router Information (RI) LSA with/ 2) Page 15 – paragraph starting with “When the M-Flag is set, the NP-Flag and the E-Flag” The text jumps and does nor provide a link to the next paragraph. I suspect you want to smooth this out. 3) Page 19, the reference back to section 4 – is accurate, but not easily understood based on section 4’s comments.