[OSPF] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt

Hi Lou,

On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Lou Berger wrote:

> Acee,
>
> Thanks for the comments.  Please see below.
>
> At 02:23 PM 4/6/2007, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>> Lou, Alex, Igor,
>>
>> I have three categories of comments:
>>
>>    Technical   - For WG discussion
>>    Editorial   - Text changes I think are needed
>>    Suggestions - Style comments based on my own preferences and
>>                  RFC Editor guidelines. I had a conversation with
>>                  them in Prague regarding style and improving  
>> document
>>                  readability.
>>
>>  See section 4 (starting on slide 47) in <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/ 
>> in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/ 
>> in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf
>>
>>    Technical Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt
>>
>> 1. Page 6, First Paragraph - I think we should change "MUST NOT" to
>>    "MAY". Also, go ahead and make two sentenses rather than  
>> connecting them
>>    with a semicolon.
>>
>>  A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets the O-bit in the
>>  options field of its Database Description packets. The O-bit MAY  
>> be set in
>>  the options field for other packet types its setting is not  
>> mandatory.
>
> okay, but as the meaning of the 0-bit in other packet types isn't  
> defined, is  "SHOULD NOT" acceptable?

This would certainly be better than "MUST NOT" since it doesn't imply  
we shouldn't accept the packet. I don't see a big advantage in trying  
to enforce a different set of options on DD packets versus hello  
packets. With LLS as WG document, I'd rather extend the protocol via  
that mechanism rather than redefining options bits for different  
packet types.

>
>> I guess I'm not compelled to potentially render existing  
>> implementations
>> in compatible and the "MUST NOT" begs the question of what one  
>> does if
>> it is set in other pacØÛ Èˆ=ÿÿÿÿlZb ket types.
>
> agreed, but I think the question is even more relevant with MAY.

In either case, I think we should say it "SHOULD be ignored on packet  
types other than Database Description packets". This may seem  
inconsistent with the above but it is in the spirit of bine "liberal  
in what you accept".

>
>
>>     Editorial Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt
>>
>> [..]
>
> okay to all.

Great.

Thanks,
Acee

>
> Lou
>
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf