Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04

Thanks for the review and the catch, Dan. Thanks for the update, Acee. I’m balloting no-obj for today.

Jari

On 09 Oct 2015, at 04:01, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for the review - please see inline.
> 
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:15 PM
> To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.all@tools.ietf.org>
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04
> Resent-From: <dromasca@avaya.com>
> Resent-To: <draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis.all@ietf.org>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:16 PM
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 10/8/15
> IETF LC End Date: 10/8/15
> IESG Telechat date: 10/15/15
> 
> Summary:
> The document is ready with one issue for clarification and minor editorial observations.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> There seems to be an inconsistency between the way padding of the value fields in the value TLVs is defined in section 2.1, and in 2.3 and 2.5 respectively.
> 
> In 2.1 we have: ‘The padding is composed of zeros’
> 
> In 2.2 we have: ‘The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is defined as in Section 2.1’ This would include the V (value) field, thus the padding.
> 
> However, in 2.3 and 2.5 the definitions of the value fields stipulate they are ‘padded with undefined bits’
> 
> Why this inconsistency?
> 
> This a good catch. I recently added the 'The padding is composed of zeros.' based on a comment. I should have made it ‘padded with undefined bits’ consistent was other text in RFC 4970. I’ll fix this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1.       If the TLV definitions within the body of the RI LSA are identical, it would have been better to separate this in a distinct sub-section.
> 
> Ok. I can do this.
> 
> 
> 2.       Please include a reference to the Vendor Enterprise Code in section 5.2
> 
> I will shorten this to “Enterprise Code” with a reference to RFC 5612. T
> 
> These changes are all in the -06 version.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04

Attachment: signature.asc