Document: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id Title: Advertisement of Remote Interface Identifiers for Layer 2 Bundle Members Reviewer: Michael Richardson Review result: Ready
RtgDir review: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-05 Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-foo-name/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. <case 2> As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-lsr-l2-bundle-member-remote-id-05 Reviewer: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Review Date: 2026-08-16. Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: Choose from this list... This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. Comments: The document seems quite readable and is quite clear as to it's purpose. I thought that LAG members could terminate on physically distinct chassis, and I'm unclear if that is important for TE. The two different L2 switches could have different congestion situations? I'm unclear if the OSPF and IS-IS extensions are between R2 and R3, or if they are advertised by R1 and R2 individually on each link. I do not think the later, because LACP/LAG operates below IP, and so the routers won't actually see the LAG. And section 7 talks about using LLDP. Is there any expectation that R1 will identify/number the members the same was R2/R3? It seems surprising that section 7 is so vague about how the links are discovered. Nits: * a sentences ends with ., and then have no space after the dot. ("purposes.For" * "As always," do not really contribute to the Security Considerations. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
