Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your review.

Dimitri, need your help!
See in line below.

Adrian

> Minor issues:
>
> -- Section 9.1:
>
> This section shows the sub-TLV types as TBD, but at least some of the 
> references sections specify type numbers.

OK, I found section 9.1
|   Value        Sub-TLV                                       Reference
|   -----------  --------------------------------------------  ----------
|   TBD          Local TE Router ID                            [This.ID]

But, in section 5.3
| The Type of the Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV is 5

Similarly,
|   TBD          Local and Remote TE Router ID                 [This.ID]

But, section 5.2
|    The Type of the Local and Remote TE Router-ID sub-TLV is 17

Also,
|   TBD          Node IPv4 Local Prefix                        [This.ID]
|   TBD          Node IPv6 Local Prefix                        [This.ID]

But in section 3
|  - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable
|  - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable

Dimitri, are these values:
- required
- desired
- suggested?

> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> -- general:
>
> It would be helpful to have referenceable numbers for the TLV format 
> figures.

Yeah, might be nice, but since the figures are not referenced outside the 
section in which they appear, I think we won't bother this time.

> Using non-mnemonic citations as if they were nouns in a sentence  creates 
> extra work for the reader, who must flip back to the  references to 
> understand the sentence.  That is, the form  "...defined  in [xxx]".  It's 
> better to say "defined in foo [xxx]". It's not as bad  with mnemonic 
> citations (e.g. "defined in [foo]"), but it can still  cause confusion if 
> text is quoted in other documents without the  associated reference 
> section.

Hmmm.
This notation seems to be used pretty widely.
I'd hate to see text that said "..defined in RFC 1234 [RFC1234]." :-)

> -- section 2, 2nd paragraph: "The
>    limit of the subdivision results is an RA that contains just two
>    sub-networks interconnected by a single link."
>
> I don't follow the last sentence. Is it possible "results is" was  meant 
> to be "results in"?

Yes. Thanks.

> -- section 3.1, last paragraph, first sentence: "The local addresses  that 
> can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs."
>
> incomplete sentence. Is "that" spurious?

Good catch.
OLD
   The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs. That is,
   router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD NOT be advertised
   in the node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV.
NEW
   The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs (that is,
   the router address and TE interface addresses) SHOULD NOT be
   advertised in the node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV.

> section 3.2, first paragraph after the figure: "Length is set to Sum[n] [4 
> + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
>        number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV."
>
> I'm not sure I understand the expression.

But you think you might? :-)

Hard doing scientific notation in ASCII, isn't it?
OLD
     Length is set to Sum[n][4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
       number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV. The encoding of
       each prefix potentially using fewer than four 32-bit words is
       described below.
NEW
     Length is set to the sum over all of the local prefixes included in
       the sub-TLV of (4 + (number of 32-bit words in the prefix)/4 ).
       The encoding of each prefix potentially using fewer than four
       32-bit words is described below.

> -- section 4.1, 3rd paragraph:
>
> Please expand LSC and PSC on first use.

oke

> -- section 6, 3rd paragraph:
>
> s/informtation/information

oke

> -- idnits reports the following:

Who can keep up with the IPR change rate?
All IPR notices correct at time of submission.
No doubt they will be updated and correct many times in the next weeks.

Many thanks,
Adrian