WG last call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 25 March 2008 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0593A6F16 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.48
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EvdNClfWHZLN for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221E23A6D49 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1JeDpe-000MMT-SP for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:25:10 +0000
Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1JeDpV-000MIF-IR for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:25:06 +0000
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m2PIOfxQ030584; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:41 GMT
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2PIOapH030525; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:39 GMT
Message-ID: <00d301c88ea5$776e6250$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
Subject: WG last call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:24:17 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Here are a few very minor review comments.
It is probable that similar comments apply to the ISIS draft. Can you check?

Thanks,
Adrian
===
Header
s/Network work group/Network working group/
Please show names as "M. Chen"
===
Abstract
s/Engineering(TE)/Engineering (TE)/
s/information from other outside the AS/information from outside the AS/
===
OSPFv3-TE
I am currently trying to close an issue down with the OSPF WG chairs and the 
ADs.
Your I-D includes extensions to OSPFv3-TE as requested by the OSPF working 
group.
This means that you are correct to have the OSPFv3-TE draft as a Normative 
reference.
However, the OSPFv3-TE draft is stalled in the OSPF working group where:
- the draft has just expired
- there is more than one implementation
- there are no known deployments
- no interop testing has been done
This means that the OSPFv3-TE draft might not advance for some time and 
might leave your draft stalled in the RFC Editor queue.
I will update the working group as we make progress on this issue.
===
Section 2.1
s/excluded.:/excluded:/
===
Section 2.2
s/PATH/Path/ x2
s/Section 4.0/Section 4./
===
Section 2.3
s/TE link is particular/TE link is particularly/
===
Section 3.1.1
s/network-wide policy choice/AS-wide policy choice/
===
Section 3.2
s/Both/Both the/
===
Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3
Please include a forward reference to Section 6.2 when you discuss the TLV 
type assignment and mention IANA.
===
Section 4
s/link , the ASBR/link, the ASBR/
s/consequently , an/consequently, an/
s/considering here(i.e.,/considering here (i.e.,/
===
Section 6.1
Please separate the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 assignments into separate paragraphs 
(or sections).
Please reference the IANA registries by name "Opaque Link-State 
Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" for OSPFv2, and "Open Shortest Path First 
v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" with sub-registry "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" for 
OSPFv3.
===
Section 8.2
[PD-PATH] is now RFC 5152
===