[Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05
Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com> Thu, 09 August 2018 22:17 UTC
Return-Path: <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D2D12D949; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D6FNzLHESR0j; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AC44130E21; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2E456702B8C3E; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 23:17:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 23:17:13 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.107]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:17:06 -0700
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05
Thread-Index: AdQwAS6UhU/3itINRG2UJcjGy5LOmA==
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 22:17:06 +0000
Message-ID: <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B0102493B@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.216.153]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B0102493Bsjceml521mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/llCbRvashlmiylxUodEZ3PxkliQ>
Subject: [Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
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, 09 Aug 2018 22:17:20 -0000
Dear authors, I'm assigned to do the shepherd review for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05. The following question needs to be answered in the review: (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05 does change RFC 2328, and this needs to be added in the title pager header, the abstract, and introduction. So please do an update version of the draft to include the required changes. Also, please fix the nits in the abstract: "however it will not used as a transit router.". Thanks, Yingzhen
- [Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-h… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospf… Padmadevi Pillay Esnault
- Re: [Lsr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospf… Acee Lindem (acee)