Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt

[Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>]

Karsten,

Thank you very much for detailed review.
Pls see inline..

Rgds
Shraddha

-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Thomann [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 1:31 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt

Hi Shraddha,

I have some typos and comments...

3.1 [RFC7684] . (space before the point)
3.2 Section 4.The (two missing spaces)
3.2 ipv4 address.The (two missing spaces)
4.2 for OSPFv3.  or in (I think it should be a comma)
5 identified in by (would delete "in")
6 compatible.It is
6 applicable.  .
7.1 directions.The link 
7.2 each link.The
7.2 capacity.  and 

<Shraddha> Corrected all the above typos.
Generally I would clean up the used version of some words as there are many 
different versions like:
Sub-TLV, sub-tlv, sub-TLV
<Shraddha> modified to "sub-TLV ".

link-overload, Link overload, link overload
<Shraddha> modified to Link-Overload for the sub-TLV everywhere

ipv4, IP4, IPv4
<Shraddha> modified to IPv4.

Reference to I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend should be updated to latest 
version.
<Shraddha> This citation is going to be removed.

Is there a reason why the text for MAX-TE-METRIC wasn't repeated in 5.3?
<Shraddha> P2MP mode not defined for TE in RFC 3630.

The section 7.1 isn't really clear, at least for me, as it sounds like that 
the service provider is signaling something within the customers L2 circuit.
<Shraddha> Added more description. Pls check if it looks better now.

Regards
Karsten


Am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017, 03:34:25 schrieb Shraddha Hegde:
> Hi All,
> 
> New version of the ospf-link-overload draft is submitted and has below
> changes
> > Area level link-overload sub-TLV reverted back to extended link opaque
> > LSA.
> > minor editorial corrections.
> 
> Let me know if you have any comments.
> 
> Rgds
> Shraddha
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 11:39 AM
> To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; Pushpasis Sarkar
> <[e-mail]>; Mohan Nanduri <[e-mail]>; Hannes
> Gredler <[e-mail]>; Luay Jalil <[e-mail]> Subject:
> New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Shraddha Hegde and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload
> Revision:	03
> Title:		OSPF Link Overload
> Document date:	2017-02-12
> Group:		ospf
> Pages:		11
> URL:           
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03.txt
> Status:        
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload/ Htmlized:  
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03 Diff:     
>      https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-03
> 
> Abstract:
>    When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the traffic
>    needs to be diverted from both ends of the link.  Increasing the
>    metric to the highest metric on one side of the link is not
>    sufficient to divert the traffic flowing in the other direction.
> 
>    It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be
>    able to advertise a link being in an overload state to indicate
>    impending maintenance activity on the link.  This information can be
>    used by the network devices to re-route the traffic effectively.
> 
>    This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate link
>    overload information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OSPF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf