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 
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-06
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 2024-11-11
IETF LC End Date: 
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
• I have some major and minor concerns about this document that I think should 
be resolved before publication.

Comments:
• The document is well written and easy to read it. 

Major Issues:
1. The definitions of the 'Key' for TLVs and sub-TLVs vary, and this document 
does not specify the Key for each MP-TLV. Therefore, it may result in 
interoperability issues if implementations use different information to 
construct the 'Key.' Given Section 8.2 listed all existing applicable MP-TLVs, 
it's essential to specify the Key for each of those MP-TLVs, either within this 
document or in a separate document to which this document should provide a 
normative reference.

Minor Issues:
1. The MP-TLV Capability Advertisement is defined as a node-based capability 
rather than on a per-codepoint basis, which limits its usefulness. In some 
cases, it may even be misleading if operators just rely on this capability to 
assume MP-TLV support. Therefore, it would be preferable to either remove this 
capability advertisement or redefine it to operate on a per-codepoint basis.

Best regards,
Mach
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to