Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07

Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Thu, 20 March 2008 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BC328C63C; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 czn14C5cxOc3; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF30528C321; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80253A6D3A; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 HtnfQuJP1-nx; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20F73A6CA9; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.195] (adsl-68-94-31-41.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [68.94.31.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2KGKVwN095452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:20:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
Message-Id: <E17A6AD2-10F1-48A2-9BE7-02FF33BDD68A@estacado.net>
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:20:31 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, aoswal@redback.com, dward@cisco.com, acee@redback.com, ppsenak@cisco.com, sina@force10networks.com, akr@cisco.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

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-ospf-multi-area-adj-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-03-20
IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed  
standard. However, I have some editorial comments that should be  
addressed first.

Comments:

Disclaimer: I am not an OSPF expert. I assume that others have  
reviewed this draft for technical correctness.

-- General:

It would be helpful to see a little more coverage on the motivation  
and background for this draft.

-- Details:

Abstract:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Section 1.2:

The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase. Also,  
"There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak motivation;  
does the requirement exist or not? Please add more background and  
motivation for why the requirement exists.

Section 1.3, first paragraph:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Paragraph 3, last sentence:

It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the support  
of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon?

Section 1.4, first paragraph, last sentence:

s/consistent/"in a manner consistent"

(or just "consistently")

Section 2.3:

It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete replacement  
of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs?  I can infer that  
you want to replace certain paragraphs by examination, but please be  
explicit.

Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF] in  
the abstract and/or introduction.

Section 3.1, last sentence:

Can you elaborate on what it means to be "cleaner from a deployment  
standpoint"?



Section 4:

Are there no updates to RFC 2740?








_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf