[Top] [All Lists]

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07

2008-03-20 09:21:51
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see

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

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-03-20
IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed  
standard. However, I have some editorial comments that should be  
addressed first.


Disclaimer: I am not an OSPF expert. I assume that others have  
reviewed this draft for technical correctness.

-- General:

It would be helpful to see a little more coverage on the motivation  
and background for this draft.

-- Details:


Please expand OSPF on first use.

Section 1.2:

The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase. Also,  
"There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak motivation;  
does the requirement exist or not? Please add more background and  
motivation for why the requirement exists.

Section 1.3, first paragraph:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Paragraph 3, last sentence:

It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the support  
of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon?

Section 1.4, first paragraph, last sentence:

s/consistent/"in a manner consistent"

(or just "consistently")

Section 2.3:

It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete replacement  
of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs?  I can infer that  
you want to replace certain paragraphs by examination, but please be  

Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF] in  
the abstract and/or introduction.

Section 3.1, last sentence:

Can you elaborate on what it means to be "cleaner from a deployment  

Section 4:

Are there no updates to RFC 2740?

IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>