Re: [Lsr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: (with COMMENT)

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

thanks for your comments. I have fixed all editorial comments.

For the last two comments, Alvaro has already taken care of.

thanks,
Peter


On 06/05/2020 07:12, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote:
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> — Section 1 —
> 
>     In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be
> 
> Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma.
> 
>     This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
>     Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to
> 
> Nit: this needs a comma after the citation.
> 
> — Section 3 —
> 
>     When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between
> 
> Nit: the abbreviation “ABR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s
> no reason to include it.
> 
> — Section 3.1 —
> 
>     Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field.
> 
> Nit: hyphenate “one-octet” as a compound modifier.
> 
> — Section 4 —
> 
>     The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the
>     ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
> 
> Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF
> document?



> 
> There does seem to be so much common text between that document and this one
> that I really don’t understand why these (the IS-IS and OSPF signaling) were
> not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>