Hi Acee,
Thanks for correction. I updated the result as "Ready".
BR,
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:07 PM
To: Yemin (Amy) <amy(_dot_)yemin(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>;
rtg-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ospf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14
Hi Min ,
On 5/17/17, 5:22 AM, "Min Ye" <amy(_dot_)yemin(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> wrote:
Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands
Review result: Has Issues
I think the result is “No Issues”.
Thanks,
Acee
Hi All,
I have been selected to do a routing directorate QA review of this
draft.
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14.txt
Summary:
This draft proposes a new addressing (TLV) format to more easily allow
additional information to be added as part of a particular LSA.
Overall, well written, easy to understand what the objective is for
this draft.
Comments and Questions:
This looks like a pretty radical change to the OSPFv3 spec. I would
almost argue to call it OSPFv4..
Its very unfortunate there are no ‘reserved’ fields in RFC5340 that
would allow you keep the existing LSA’s format and have some way to
extend it differently. The TLV approach look good, I can’t see a better
way to achieve the goal.
Minor Issues and Nits:
none.
Thx,
Ice.