Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12

From: Daniele Ceccarelli via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 09:18:11 -0700

Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review result: Has Nits

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: 2020-05-29
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary:

The readibility of the draft has been significantly improved since my last
review (v07), mostly the abstract and the introduction, which now cleary state
what is the scope of the draft. I also appreciated the introduction of section
3 where a description of the existing solution is described.

Minor issues:
- Section 4.1 - Advantages with respect to RSVP-TE are described while the text
speaks about advantages with respect to RSVP-TE and GMPLS, probably it could be
changed into: advantages with respect to RSVP-TE when used in packet networks
and in GMPLS, something like this. - Section 5 - Why for the UDABM it doens't
say the value MUST be 0,4,8 but rather says "the legal values are" ? Is 8
octets future-proof enough? or conversely, if only 3 values are defined why do
we need 8 octects as option? - Section 8 - I really find it hard to understand
this small section.

Typos:
-  Unidirectional Link Dela [RFC7471]