Hi Acee, Thanks for correction. I updated the result as "Ready".
BR, Amy -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:07 PM To: Yemin (Amy) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-14 Hi Min , On 5/17/17, 5:22 AM, "Min Ye" <[email protected]> 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. > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
