Hi Ben,
I believe I've addressed your editorial comments and will send a
draft copy to yourself and the other authors (not ietf.org). The
updated version will also include Nischal Seth's comment regarding
the wording inadvertently precluding OSPF point-to-point over LAN
interfaces.
With respect to your last comment regarding RFC 2740, we do have an
update pending but would prefer not to hold up documents referencing
RFC 2740. Given the size of the RFC 2740 BIS draft, it could take
some time to make it through the process.
Thanks,
Acee
On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
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.
Comments:
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:
Abstract:
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 explicit.
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
standpoint"?
Section 4:
Are there no updates to RFC 2740?
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf