Re: [Rift] AD review for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13

hi, 
A new version has been uploaded. All the comments/corrections AD raised is resloved. 
I went through the document again and a bunch of typos and inconsistent expression issues are also fixed.
For your convenience：https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13&url2=draft-ietf-rift-applicability-14&difftype=--html
Thank you~

Best Regards,
Yuehua Wei

Original

From: AntoniPrzygienda <prz=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
To: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>;
Cc: draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org <draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org>;rift-chairs@ietf.org <rift-chairs@ietf.org>;rift@ietf.org <rift@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年04月17日 02:05
Subject: Re: [Rift] AD review for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13

_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list
RIFT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift

 Jim, thanks for careful reading. All sounds minor and reasonable  
On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:58, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the latest version of this document. I have some further comments/corrections before I move the document forward. Please review and publish a new version as soon as possible:

171     Section 4.2.3.8 "Southbound Default Route Origination" of RIFT

Jim> This is an incorrect reference. It should be Section 6.3.8 (v-21 of the RIFT spec). Please correct the reference.

215     A spine node has only information necessary for its level, which is
216     all destinations south of the node based on SPF calculation, default
217     route, and potential disaggregated routes.

Jim> Change ‘potential’ to ‘potentially’ above.

225     *  Minimal routes/info on Top-of-Rack (ToR) switches, aka leaf nodes

Jim> Change ‘routes/info’ to ‘routes/information’ above.

1045  5.8.  Mobile Edge and Anycast

1047    When a physical or a virtual node changes its point of attachement in

Jim> Correct typo ‘attachement’ above.

1068    Section 4.3.3.  "Mobility" of [RIFT] specifies an hybrid method that

Jim> Above reference is incorrect. Section 6.8.4 of [RIFT] is the correct reference. Please correct it.

1105    the point of attachement changes.  This way, it is possible to

Jim> Correct typo above.

1109    of its points of attachement.

Jim> Correct typo above.

1111  5.9.  IPv4 over IPv6

1115    mechanisms and then V4 can use V6 nexthops analogous to [RFC8950].

Jim> Replace ‘nexthops’ with ‘next-hops’

1408  5.17.  Key Management

1410    As outlined in Section "Security Considerations" of [RIFT], either a

Jim> Please update reference to ‘Section 9 “Security Considerations” of [RIFT]’.

Thanks!

Jim