[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt
Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Fri, 10 August 2012 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC71821F861E for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0BBmd3AzRbv for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4580221F844E for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.149]) by tama50.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7AF37l6010147; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:03:07 +0900
Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9128FE0090; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:03:07 +0900 (JST)
Received: from imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.247]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85656E008F; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:03:07 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (panasonic.nslab.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.80.55]) by imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7AF2fQM004248; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:03:07 +0900
Message-ID: <502522AE.1060301@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:03:10 +0900
From: Tomonori Takeda <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; ja-JP; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110323 Lanikai/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:03:10 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda Review Date: 2012-08-10 IETF LC End Date: 2012-08-17 Intended Status: Proposed Standard Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This document defines OSPF extensions to meet the requirements for ASON routing expressed in RFC 4258. This document obsoletes RFC 5787, which is an experimental version of OSPF extensions for ASON routing. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Nits: 1) In Section 4, last line, it says "refer to section 6.1", which should be "refer to section 6.2". 2) In Section 6.1, last paragraph, there are two places with "the Local and Remote ID sub-TLV", which should be "the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV". 3) In Section 11.1, 7th line, it says "with RCs in the same RC", which should be "with RCs in the same RA". 4) In Section 12, requirements from RFC 4258 are listed. I am wondering how these requirements are picked from RFC 4258. My guess is that requirements are largely from text with "MUST" "SHALL" "SHOULD" in RFC 4258, but several requirements listed in Section 12 are not clear to me. Specifically, a) Requirements #7 and #8 - I could not find corresponding text in RFC 4258. Have I missed something? b) Requirements #14 and #15 - My reading of RFC 4258 is that these are just "approaches" and not "requirements". Thanks, Tomonori
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787… Tomonori Takeda
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc… Malis, Andrew G (Andy)