Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-10

From: "Peter Yee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:02:46 -0700

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.  For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Document: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-10
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: May 3, 2016
IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2016
IESG Telechat date: May 5, 2016

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC, but has an issue and some nits that should be fixed/considered before
publication. [Ready with issues]

This draft defines a means to carry additional per-node administrative tags
with the IS-IS protocol.  These tags can be used along with local policy to
simplify the management of routing and path selection.  This specification
gives informative examples of such tag usage but does not otherwise
prescribe the meaning of the tags.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Page 5, section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The sentence states:
"Being part of the Router CAPABILITY TLV, the node administrative tag
sub-TLV MUST be reasonably small and stable."  If you're going to make this
a MUST, you've got to at least give a definition of "reasonably small" and
perhaps even "stable" in the context of this specification.  As it stands,
there's no test for whether the MUST is enforceable or understandable
between parties.

Nits:

General:

The use of capitalization of Node administrative tag varies throughout the
document.  It seems clear that you mean for it to be written as "Node
Administrative Tag" when referring to the name of sub-TLV.  For other uses,
I would suggest using "node administrative tag" (all lower case)
consistently.  Use that to replace "Node administrative tag".

Specific:

 Page 3, 1st paragraph after the labeled items at the top, 3rd sentence:
change the first "TLV" to "sub-TLV".

Page 3, Section 2, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after "another".

Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change "a" before "IS-IS" to
"an".

Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "Capablity" to
"CAPABILITY".

Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "Operator" to "An
operator".  Change "diiferent" to "different".

Page 3, Section 3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "the" before "Node".

Page 3, Section 3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "topology specific"
to "topology-specific".  (That is to say, swap the space for a hyphen.)

Page 4, Section 3.1, Value definition: insert "node" before
"administrative".

Page 4, Section 4.1, 1st sentence: change "Node" to "node".  (See general
nit.)

Page 4, Section 4.1, 3rd sentence: delete the space after the slash and
before regulations.

Page 5, 3rd full paragraph, 4th sentence: delete the spaces after closing
parenthesis and the terminating period.

Page 6, Section 4.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "Node" to "node".
(See general nit.)  Change the first "TLVs" to "sub-TLVs".

Page 6, Section 4.3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the space before
the comma.

Page 6, Section 5, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change "Node" to "node".
(See general nit.)

Page 6, Section 5, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: change "Following" to "The
following".

Page 6, Section 5, 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: change "section-3" to
"section 3".

Page 7, Section 6, 2nd paragraph, the comma should be rejoined with the
closing parenthesis.

Page 7, Section 7, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "is" to "are".

Page 7, Section 8, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete "The" before "YANG".
With the change in the rest of the sentence, "The" becomes superfluous.

Page 8, Section 9: change "Capabality" to "CAPABILITY".

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:11:23 -0400

> there's no test for whether the MUST is enforceable or understandable

Jari

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:20:37 +0530

Hi Peter,

Sorry for the late reply. Was not doing well..

Once again, thanks a lot for the detailed review comments. I will 
address them very soon..

Thanks
-Pushpasis

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 09:00:54 +0530

Hi Peter,

I have uploaded version-11 addressing all the comments below. Please let 
me know if you have any more comments.

Thanks and Regards,

-Pushpasis