Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10

Mirja Kuehlewind <> Mon, 02 December 2019 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DCD12080F for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:30:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67ZfGK_ojfVM for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B30DB120099 for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:30:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2001:16b8:2c26:2800:d41b:4bca:626c:dd5e]); authenticated by running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1ibpWW-00010U-UD; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 18:30:12 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:30:12 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Kyle Rose <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-HE-SMSGID: 1ibpWW-00010U-UD
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 17:30:18 -0000

Hi Kyle,

Thanks for the review. I forgot to look at your review before putting my ballot in but ended up with similar comments. However, I see at least the security point has been resolved. Usually I note TSV-ART reviews in my ballot position (which I didn’t do in this case respectively), so I just wanted to say thanks for the review directly!


> On 31. Oct 2019, at 22:47, Kyle Rose via Datatracker <> wrote:
> Reviewer: Kyle Rose
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
> discussion list for information.
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> if you reply to or forward this review.
> This document is basically ready. I have the following comments:
> * LSA should be defined where it is first used.
> * I'm curious what happens if a router sets the H-bit when it is on the only
> feasible transit path.
> * In the security considerations, the document states:
> q( The feature, however does introduce the flooding of a capability
>   information that allows discovery and verification that all routers
>   in an area are capable before turning on the feature )
> I'm not sure "flooding" is the right term here, as the communication
> comprising the OSPF control plane is not new: only a single bit has a
> new meaning. This statement is also worded awkwardly, but without
> a clearer understanding of what is meant, I don't know that I can
> suggest alternative wording.
> _______________________________________________
> Tsv-art mailing list