Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-14

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:14:07 +0200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-14

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2010-12-20

IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-5

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Standard track
RFC.

Major issues:

No Major issues

Minor issues:

1.  In section 2.1 after figure 1 you specify the different fields. Please
specify the size in bits of the flags field the A-field and the prec field.

2.  In section 2.1 in example 1 how is it known that all nodes MUST be main
powered. Do you need to provide a value to prec field?

3.  In section 3.1 and throughout the document when you define the different
object you have "recommended value=xx". I think that since this draft
defines the table and create the initial table in the IANA consideration
section these are the actual values. So maybe say that these are the actual
values as specified in section 6 (6.1)

4.  In section 3.1 the flag field - how many bits, specify.

5.  In section 3.2 figure 4 shows a flag field, how many bits, what is the
value.

6.  In section 6 according to rfc5226 "IETF consensus" is now "IETF review".

7.  In section 6.1 you should say that the table has the initial values and
add which numbers are available for allocation.

8.  In section 6.2 what values are available for allocation.  Also say that
currently the table is empty.

9.  In section 6.2 is there a reason to create an empty table. Why not do it
when there is a request to define a TLV

10.In section 6.3, are there more values allowed, can they be allocated. If
not why have it managed by IANA.

11.After the table in section in section 6.3 there is a request to create
another table. Maybe it should be in a separate section.

12.In section 6.3 "New bit numbers may be allocated", how many bits are
available. 

13.The same paragraph in section 6.3 also talks about the registration
policy, is it different from the one that is common in section 6, why
specify it again. Also look at comment 6

14.Comment 12 and 13 are also true for section 6.4 and 6.5.

Nits/editorial comments:

1.  In section first paragraph "object" should be "object"

2.  In section 4.3.2 first paragraph "wich" should be "which"