Hi Christian, Thank you very much for your review.
Unfortunately, the document has already been approved by the IESG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-isis-te-bis/ FWIW, I agree with your nits. ;-) Regards, Tony |-----Original Message----- |From: Christian Vogt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:04 AM |To: Gen-ART Mailing List |Cc: Tony Li; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ross Callon |Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-bis-00 | |I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) |reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see |http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). | |Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments |you may receive. | | |Document..........: draft-ietf-isis-te-bis-00 |Reviewer..........: Christian Vogt |Review date.......: 2008/07/25 | | |Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard |RFC. | | |The document is clearly ready for publication. Just two nits: | |In section 3, you write: | | Further, there is no defined mechanism for extending the sub-TLV | space for a particular neighbor. Thus, wasting sub-TLV space is | discouraged. | |This seems to be a general issue that may be good to move to a more |dominant position. It refers to the sub-TLV concept in general, but |here it is mentioned only in the specific context of the Extended IS |Reachability TLV. Consider moving this to a place that talks |generally about the sub-TLV concept, e.g., to section 2. | |In section 4, you write: | | This data structure can be replicated within the TLV, | without exceeding the maximum length of the TLV. | |Suggest rewording to "...as long as the maximum length of the TLV is |not exceeded". | |Best regards, |- Christian | | | _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
