Re: [Rift] About the idnits of draft-ietf-rift-rift

[Jordan Head <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for letting us know. I’ll address those as Alvaro continues his review and incorporate them into the next version.

Thanks
Jordan

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, December 19, 2022 at 8:32 AM
To: Jordan Head <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Rift] About the idnits of draft-ietf-rift-rift

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Hi Jordan and co-author,

This is the idnits of draft-ietf-rift-rift version 16, please consider the needed editorial changes.



idnits 2.17.1



draft-ietf-rift-rift-16.txt:



  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see

  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



     No issues found here.



  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



     No issues found here.



  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



  ** There are 132 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest

     one being 30 characters in excess of 72.



  == There are 2 instances of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in the

     document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed

     to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771





  Miscellaneous warnings:

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



  == Line 7196 has weird spacing: '...berType  undef...'



  == Line 7198 has weird spacing: '...velType   top_...'



  == Line 7200 has weird spacing: '...itsType  defau...'



  == Line 7202 has weird spacing: '...velType   leaf...'



  == Line 7203 has weird spacing: '...velType   defa...'



  == (31 more instances...)



  == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',

     or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119.  Please

     use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you

     mean).



     Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph:



     A prefix can carry the `directly_attached` attribute to indicate

     that the prefix is directly attached, i.e. should be routed to even if

     the node is in overload.  In case of a negatively distributed prefix this

     attribute MUST not be included by the originator and it MUST be ignored

     by all nodes during SPF computation.  If a prefix is locally originated

     the attribute `from_link` can indicate the interface to which the address

     belongs to.  In case of a negatively distributed prefix this attribute

     MUST NOT be included by the originator and it MUST be ignored by all

     nodes during computation.  A prefix can also carry the `loopback`

     attribute to indicate the said property.



  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code

     sections in the document, please surround them with '' and

     '' lines.





  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references

     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)



  == Missing Reference: 'A' is mentioned on line 260, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'B' is mentioned on line 260, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'C' is mentioned on line 270, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'D' is mentioned on line 270, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'E' is mentioned on line 263, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'F' is mentioned on line 263, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'Plane A' is mentioned on line 3651, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'Plane B' is mentioned on line 3651, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'Plane C' is mentioned on line 3651, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'Plane D' is mentioned on line 3651, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'NH' is mentioned on line 3570, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'P' is mentioned on line 3781, but not defined



  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5880' is mentioned on line 7155, but not defined



  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:

     draft-ietf-rift-applicability (ref. 'APPLICABILITY')



  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EUI64'



  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301)





     Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 21 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).



     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about

     the items above.



Thanks,

Sandy


Juniper Business Use Only