Thanks for the comment, But do we mark the update to base RFC if some reserved bit is being used? Because it does not change any base procedure of RFC 7307.
Mankamana From: Roni Even via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 11:20 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05 Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Ready with Nits 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 IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2024-05-02 IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-02 IESG Telechat date: 2024-05-16 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standard track rfc with nits Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: 1. This document is using the few types from iana fed type name space registry. I think that the Iana section should ask to update the registry pointing to this document and verify that all fields in the relevant entries are not changed 2. The document is using 8 bits from the MT IP address for the IPA field. Should this document title say that it updates RFC7307 or specify how to prevent different use of these reserved bits?
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
