Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-18
review-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-18-tsvart-lc-trammell-2025-10-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2025-10-07
Requested 2025-09-23
Authors Pradosh Mohapatra , Reshma Das , SATYA R MOHANTY , Serge Krier , Rafal Jan Szarecki , Akshay Gattani
I-D last updated 2025-10-07 (Latest revision 2025-10-06)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -16 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Russ White (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -18 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -18 by Ivaylo Petrov (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Trammell
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/RdHtrsPWD1LiWzaH_SC9QjbDzJU
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-10-03
review-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-18-tsvart-lc-trammell-2025-10-03-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

This document raises no transport-relevant concerns, and from that 
standpoint is ready for publication. I did have to refresh my knowledge of 
transitivity in the context of BGP extended communities in order to be able
to read it, and I was expecting to have to write something like "please 
don't abuse this to expose short-timescale changes to available headroom
on a link" to avoid multipath churn leading to transport-layer unfriendliness,
but the specification does not lend itself (at all) to such shenanigans,
so I'm happy with it.

(And congratulations to the authors and WG on getting a 16 year old 
document to this point in the process!)