Co-Authors, Please respond to Michael's comments and question.
Thanks, Acee > On Aug 16, 2026, at 5:31 PM, Michael Richardson via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
