[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-03-22 12:09:31
Hi Ben,
I believe I've addressed your editorial comments and will send a  
draft copy to yourself and the other authors (not The  
updated version will also include Nischal Seth's comment regarding  
the wording inadvertently precluding OSPF point-to-point over LAN  

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.

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

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 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  

Section 4:

Are there no updates to RFC 2740?

IETF mailing list