Dear Authors,



I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 


ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 


IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the 


operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed 


in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  


Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any 


other last call comments.




Document Reviewed - draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03


Link to Document - 


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03






Summary:



This document outlines an experimental set of new sub-objects within the 


RSVP-TE / GMPLS framework which includes 4-byte Autonomous Systems and 


Interior Gateway Protocol Area (IGP) during path setup. The new ERO 


(Explicit Route Objects), XRO (Exclude Route Object) and EXRS (Explicit 


Inclusion Route) sub-objects are defined within the document, including 


the mode of operation in how they are to be used.




General Comments and Feedback:



Backwards compatibility is generally address by reference to RFC3209 


which describes behavior of implementations which do not yet have these 


new sub-objects defined (i.e. PathErr).  This behavior is both expected 


and valid.






In section 3.2.1, when defining the behavior of nodes which support this 


new 4-byte option capability, it is suggested that the 4-byte 


sub-objected be used for both 2-byte and 4-byte ASs information 


transfer.  It's understand that this document is designated for 


Experimental, so operational challenges which can arise may be better 


suited for review when an Standard-Track document is released, however, 


I would suggested that we consider making it a MUST or  SHOULD by 


default.  I would also think that one may consider saying that if the 


4-byte sub-option is used, then the 2-byte sub-option should not be used 


at the same time (although the information would be consistent (likely), 


it's my opinion that the same information not be advertised at the same 


time using two different options. (point of consideration, not a must).




Textual Review:

No specific text changes were / are suggested from this review.