Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt

[Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou:

I am Ok with your answers. The only thing, in Section 3, about the 
"must" and "must not"... If the intention is to have an informative 
description, you may consider the usage of different words than "must" 
and "must not", because people sometimes do not realize if these are an 
oversight or not. I would suggest:
                                                                  The
     receiver always store a valid received Opaque LSA in its link-
     state database.  The receiver does not accept Opaque LSAs that
     violate the flooding scope (e.g., a type-11 (domain-wide) Opaque LSA

/Miguel

Lou Berger wrote:
> Miguel,
>         Thank you very much for the comments.  Please see in-line 
> responses below.
> 
> At 04:51 PM 3/24/2008, Miguel Garcia wrote:
>> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
>> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt
>> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>
>> Review Date: 2008-03-25
>> IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26
>>
>> Summary: The document is ready for publication as a proposed standard 
>> RFC.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> - Section 2.2. The document mentions an expired Internet-Draft without 
>> a reference. Since this is not critical for the document, and since 
>> this document is going to be published as an RFC, I would suggest to 
>> delete the draft name, perhaps even the second complete sentence.
> 
> Section 2.2 is an Acknowledgments section.  As such, it is legitimate 
> for the authors to indicate the source of this work.  The draft name is 
> not formally referenced intentionally, and is listed to represent a 
> factual past event.
> 
> I recommend against any change to this section.
> 
>> - Section 3, 7th paragraph says:
>>
>>                                                                 The
>>    receiver must always store a valid received Opaque LSA in its link-
>>    state database.  The receiver must not accept Opaque LSAs that
>>    violate the flooding scope (e.g., a type-11 (domain-wide) Opaque LSA
>>
>> I think the "must" and "must not" should be normative (capitalized).
> 
> These paragraph is descriptive in a general fashion and 2119 
> capitalization is not appropriate.  The corresponding prescriptive text 
> is in section 3.1 and uses 2119 key words (capitalization).
> 
> No change should be made to this section.
> 
>> - References [OSPF-MT] and [OSPFv3] do not list the version number of 
>> the draft. Actually, OSPF-MT has been published as RFC 4915.
> 
> We can either update & reissue or have the RFC editor fix...
> 
>> /Miguel
> 
> Much thanks again,
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> 
>> -- 
>> Miguel A. Garcia           tel:[phone]
>> Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:[phone]
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art