Subject: [OSPF] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:34:03 -0800

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Almost Ready

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 more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-10
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-12-21
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues:
     If a remote IPv4 address is needed in some cases for link identification,
     then does it not follow that for IPv6 usage with OSPFv3, a remote IPv6
     address is also needed?

Minor issues:
    Why is the remote IPv4 address TLV being defined here?  It is not specific
    to link maintenance.  If this is the first place it is needed, could the
    text at least be clearer that this is a general purpose sub-TLV, not
    specific to the link maintenance indication?

Nits/editorial comments:
    Given that this document specifically states that the problem to be solved
    is the desire to take a link out of service, I would strongly prefer that
    the option being defined by named to match the goal.  The link being
    modified is not overloaded.  Could this be renamed the link
    pending-maintenance indication or something along those lines?  I realize
    the working group knows what it means.  But the point of naming is so that
    folks looking later can understand or find the item.