[Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10

Kyle Rose via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 31 October 2019 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC714120833; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Rose via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit.all@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org>
Message-ID: <157255845092.30400.10881471178799546764@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:47:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/lZpodIvIzoONyIlbSCPctMkLwUo>
Subject: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 21:47:31 -0000

Reviewer: Kyle Rose
Review result: Ready with Nits

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

This document is basically ready. I have the following comments:

* LSA should be defined where it is first used.
* I'm curious what happens if a router sets the H-bit when it is on the only
feasible transit path.
* In the security considerations, the document states:

q( The feature, however does introduce the flooding of a capability
   information that allows discovery and verification that all routers
   in an area are capable before turning on the feature )

I'm not sure "flooding" is the right term here, as the communication
comprising the OSPF control plane is not new: only a single bit has a
new meaning. This statement is also worded awkwardly, but without
a clearer understanding of what is meant, I don't know that I can
suggest alternative wording.