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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-03-12
IETF LC End Date: 2009-03-13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

This draft is very close to ready for publication as an experimental  
RFC. I found one minor issue with the IANA considerations that should  
be fixed first. I also have a few comments related to editorial issues  
and nits.

Major issues:

None

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.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- general:

It would be helpful to have referenceable numbers for the TLV format  
figures.

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.

-- 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"?

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

incomplete sentence. Is "that" spurious?

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.

-- section 4.1, 3rd paragraph:

Please expand LSC and PSC on first use.

-- section 6, 3rd paragraph:

s/informtation/information

-- idnits reports the following:

>   == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions Section 6.b License  
> Notice from
>      10 Nov 2008 rather than the newer Notice from 12 Feb 2009.   
> Both versions
>      are accepted up to the end of March 2009; after that you'll  
> need to use
>      the 12 Feb 2009 Notice.  (See http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
>
>   == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work,  
> but was
>      first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the  
> disclaimer?
>      (See the Legal Provisions document at
>      http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).
>