[Gen-art] Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-10

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Peter: Would you like to review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv/ to find out some “Major Issues” that are related this document? It doesn’t need the solid background of IS-IS to get the key challenges that are existing in the document. Or. Would you like to response the challenges that are described in this document( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv/ ) if you think there is no “major issues” of this document? Aijun Wang China Telecom On Mar 4, 2025, at 18:30, Peter Yee via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: Reviewer: Peter Yee 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-lsr-multi-tlv-10 Reviewer: Peter Yee Review Date: 2025-03-04 IETF LC End Date: 2025-02-25 IESG Telechat date: 2025-04-17 Summary: This draft provides unified support for multi-part TLVs in IS-IS to allow TLVs to exceed the 255-octet limit by splitting contents between multiple TLVs. It updates an IANA registry to enumerate which existing TLVs can use the multi-part mechanism. I did not attempt to validate the MP-TLV column given in the updated IANA instructions. I am not sufficiently cognizant of the problems that might occur with multi-part TLVs to comment on whether there are some tricky edge cases, but the recommendations given appear appropriate, particularly the warning against deploying these MP-TLVs in networks that do not fully understand them. There are some minor nits in the document that should be fixed prior to publication. [Ready with Nits] Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Page 1, Abstract, 1st sentence: I’d append “per TLV” at the end of the sentence as it wasn’t initially clear to me that the 255-octet limit was on a per TLV basis and not across all TLVs sent. If this is obvious to most practitioners, then this change is unnecessary. Page 3, section 1, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: chance “occurences” to “occurrences”. Page 3, section 1, 6th paragraph: change “16 bit” to “16-bit”. Page 4, section 3.1, 2nd sentence: change “is” to “are”. Page 6, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: change “define” to “define(s)” to match “specification(s)”. Page 8, section 7, 2nd paragraph: change “disgnosing” to “diagnosing”. Page 9, section 8, 1st sentence: change “interoperablity” to “interoperability”. Page 10, section 8.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma after “restrictions”. -- last-call mailing list -- last-c...@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-le...@ietf.org

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org