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

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?

>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 È=ÿÿÿÿlZb ket types.

agreed, but I think the question is even more relevant with MAY.

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

okay to all.

Lou

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