Re: [OSPF] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-14: (with DISCUSS)

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,
 
I think it should be clear now:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-15.tx
t


I also fixed some misspelling introduced in the -14 version.

Thanks,
Acee 

On 2/9/15, 4:18 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-14: Discuss
>
>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 http://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:
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I've trimmed by Discuss to remove the pieces you have handled. Many
>thanks for that.
>
>====
>
>> Does this document really update 5340?
>> There is no mention of what this update is or why it is considered a
>> part of the standard implementation of OSPFv3 to include the features
>> described in this document.
>>
>> I suggest either dropping the update or clarifying how it works.
>>
>> (Note that idnits should have flagged this to you, but the shepherd
>> write-up says that this document doesn't change the status of any
>> existing RFCs.)
>
>We discussed this a little, and I got the impression that the conclusion
>was that "update" really was intended.
>
>In this case you need to (as also discussed):
>- make this clear in the Abstract (as indicated by idnits)
>- spend some time in the document (probably the Introduction) explaining
>how the update works (which is, I believe you are saying, that all new
>implementations of OSPFv3 are expected to include support for this
>feature).
>
>I do see that you have added to the Introduction:
>
>   This document describes
>   extensions to OSPFv3 to enable it to operate in these environments.
>
>But that is ambiguous. Are the "MUST"s in this document mandatory
>behaviour for an implementation of OSPFv3 or for an implementation of
>this document which is an option for OSPFv3 implementations? I don't
>think this is hard to write down, but I don't know what you are trying to
>achieve.
>
>
>
>