Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-06.txt

From: Tomonori Takeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 22:53:24 +0900

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 ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/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: draft-ietf-mpls-extended-admin-group-06.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 2 May 2014
IETF LC End Date: 6 May 2014
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered 
prior to publication.

Comments:
This document is short, clearly written and easy to understand.
This document writes protocol extensions for OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE, which is straight-forward.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:

o Abstract
   It says:
   "the Administrative Group sub-TLV of the Link TLV"
   Precisely speaking, I think this should be:
   "the Administrative Group sub-TLV of the Link TLV for OSPFv2/OSPFv3
    and of the Extended IS Reachability TLV for ISIS"
   Or this could simply be:
   "the Administrative Group sub-TLV"

o Section 1, 3rd paragraph
   s/vaues/values

o Section 2
   "This document defines a sub-TLV of the Link TLV for both OSPF
    [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305] ... "
    Same as above (comment for Abstract).

o Section 2.2
   "the existing Administrative Group TLVs" should be:
   "the existing Administrative Group sub-TLVs".

o Section 2.3.2, 3rd paragraph
   "as the assumption is than an unadvertised bit is set to 0"
   I guess "than" should be "that".

Thanks,
Tomonori Takeda