Thank you for the review, Joel, and for the update, Daniel. I have balloted a No-Obj for this document in tomorrow's IESG telechat.
Jari On Feb 21, 2014, at 6:04 AM, Daniel King <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Joel, > > Thank you for your comments. > > We have updated the MPLS LDP MT draft and have clarified the Multi-Topology > Identifiers, figure 10 shows the initial MT-ID registry values: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-11#section-9 > > We have also defined (and documented in the draft) that a new Internet-Draft > will be created to document the policy and process for allocating future > MT-IDs values from the LDP MT Name Space. > > Re: Network byte order > > The implementers chose the sequence format so that MT-ID was added > intentionally after IP Prefix to emphasise it as an extension to existing IP > Prefix. > > Br, Dan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel > M. Halpern > Sent: October 18, 2013 10:31 AM > To: A. Jean Mahoney > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; IETF discussion list > Subject: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt > LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing > Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern > Review Date: 18-October-2013 > IETF LC End Date: 6-November-2013 > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed > Standard RFC. I believe there is one major issue that is easily addressed. > > Major issues: > I may have simply missed this reviewing the document, but as far as I > can tell there is no specification of the relationship between the MT-IDs in > this document and the MT-IDs used elsewhere. Yes, I can take a guess at the > intent. But is it stated somewhere that these are the same IDs negotiated > in the relevant IGP? Or is there some other intent? > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > I find it odd that the MT-ID follows the IP prefix in the various > formats. Yes, the computer can parse both. But since we tend to think in > Network byte order, I expect more significant information (MT-ID) to occur > before less significant information (IP prefix within topology.) > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
