Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt

["Malis, Andrew G \(Andy\)" <[e-mail]>]

Tomonori,

Thanks for your review, and sorry for the delay on the response, but we've
also been working on incorporating other changes to the draft as well. In
working on your comments, I wanted to respond to your comment #4 below. In
response to question a, requirements 7 and 8 are a (perhaps too?) succinct
distillation of the text in section 3.2 of RFC 4258. Requirements 14 and
15 come from the totality of text in that section, not just the two
approaches towwards the end of the section.

Thanks again,
Andy

On 8/10/2012 11:03 , "Tomonori Takeda" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

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