Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:20:31 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-03-20
IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed  
standard. However, I have some editorial comments that should be  
addressed first.

Comments:

Disclaimer: I am not an OSPF expert. I assume that others have  
reviewed this draft for technical correctness.

-- General:

It would be helpful to see a little more coverage on the motivation  
and background for this draft.

-- Details:

Abstract:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Section 1.2:

The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase. Also,  
"There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak motivation;  
does the requirement exist or not? Please add more background and  
motivation for why the requirement exists.

Section 1.3, first paragraph:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Paragraph 3, last sentence:

It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the support  
of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon?

Section 1.4, first paragraph, last sentence:

s/consistent/"in a manner consistent"

(or just "consistently")

Section 2.3:

It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete replacement  
of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs?  I can infer that  
you want to replace certain paragraphs by examination, but please be  
explicit.

Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF] in  
the abstract and/or introduction.

Section 3.1, last sentence:

Can you elaborate on what it means to be "cleaner from a deployment  
standpoint"?

Section 4:

Are there no updates to RFC 2740?

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:33:39 -0000

If in doubt, expand acronyms.

But see also http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:35:13 -0400

Hi Ben,
I believe I've addressed your editorial comments and will send a  
draft copy to yourself and the other authors (not ietf.org). The  
updated version will also include Nischal Seth's comment regarding  
the wording inadvertently precluding OSPF point-to-point over LAN  
interfaces.

With respect to your last comment regarding RFC 2740, we do have an  
update pending but would prefer not to hold up documents referencing  
RFC 2740. Given the size of the RFC 2740 BIS draft, it could take  
some time to make it through the process.

Thanks,
Acee
On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase.  
> Also, "There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak  
> motivation; does the requirement exist or not? Please add more  
> background and motivation for why the requirement exists.
>
> It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the  
> support of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon?
>
> It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete  
> replacement of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs?  I  
> can infer that you want to replace certain paragraphs by  
> examination, but please be explicit.
>
> Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF]  
> in the abstract and/or introduction.
>

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:57:44 -0400

Hi Ben,
Based on this list, should I remove the expansion of OSPF? Since it  
is only the first occurrence, I'm not that concerned either way.
Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:15 -0500

Hi everyone,

For the record, Acee responded to my review off-list, and the preview  
of version 9 of this draft addresses all of my comments to my  
satisfaction.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> "There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:21:20 -0500

(Oops, sent from wrong account and ended up in moderation. Here it is  
again. Sorry for the duplicates.)

Hi everyone,

Thanks!

Ben.