Thanks Roni,
Good catches.
Adrian
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Roni
Even
Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-8-12
IETF LC End Date: 2012-8-17
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 6.1 " If specified more than once, instances preceding the first will
be ignored and condition SHOULD be logged for possible action by the network
operator." I am not sure what is meant by preceding the first.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. The following note appears in section 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3. "Note that
the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and the Inter-RA Export
Downward Sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in the Link TLV, Node Attribute
TLV, and Router Address TLV." - why not have it in section 10 before section
10.1.
2. I saw in appendix B that one of the changes from RFC 5787 was to
clarify the terminology before defining extensions, I would have found it easier
to read if the ASON hierarchy and the relation to OSPF in section 2 were
presented in figures. This was more an issue to me as a reader not familiar with
the terminology and I would like to think that the more familiar reader will not
have problem.