Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:51:45 +0200

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>	
Review Date: 2008-03-25
IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a proposed standard RFC.

Comments:

- Section 2.2. The document mentions an expired Internet-Draft without a 
reference. Since this is not critical for the document, and since this 
document is going to be published as an RFC, I would suggest to delete 
the draft name, perhaps even the second complete sentence.

- Section 3, 7th paragraph says:

                                                                 The
    receiver must always store a valid received Opaque LSA in its link-
    state database.  The receiver must not accept Opaque LSAs that
    violate the flooding scope (e.g., a type-11 (domain-wide) Opaque LSA

I think the "must" and "must not" should be normative (capitalized).

- References [OSPF-MT] and [OSPFv3] do not list the version number of 
the draft. Actually, OSPF-MT has been published as RFC 4915.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

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

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:44:00 -0400

Miguel,
         Thank you very much for the comments.  Please see in-line 
responses below.

At 04:51 PM 3/24/2008, Miguel Garcia wrote:
>- Section 2.2. The document mentions an expired Internet-Draft 
>without a reference. Since this is not critical for the document, 
>and since this document is going to be published as an RFC, I would 
>suggest to delete the draft name, perhaps even the second complete sentence.

Section 2.2 is an Acknowledgments section.  As such, it is legitimate 
for the authors to indicate the source of this work.  The draft name 
is not formally referenced intentionally, and is listed to represent 
a factual past event.

I recommend against any change to this section.

>I think the "must" and "must not" should be normative (capitalized).

These paragraph is descriptive in a general fashion and 2119 
capitalization is not appropriate.  The corresponding prescriptive 
text is in section 3.1 and uses 2119 key words (capitalization).

No change should be made to this section.

>- References [OSPF-MT] and [OSPFv3] do not list the version number 
>of the draft. Actually, OSPF-MT has been published as RFC 4915.

We can either update & reissue or have the RFC editor fix...

>/Miguel

Much thanks again,

Lou

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:12:08 +0200

Hi Lou:

I am Ok with your answers. The only thing, in Section 3, about the 
"must" and "must not"... If the intention is to have an informative 
description, you may consider the usage of different words than "must" 
and "must not", because people sometimes do not realize if these are an 
oversight or not. I would suggest:
                                                                  The
     receiver always store a valid received Opaque LSA in its link-
     state database.  The receiver does not accept Opaque LSAs that
     violate the flooding scope (e.g., a type-11 (domain-wide) Opaque LSA

/Miguel

Lou Berger wrote:
>> - Section 2.2. The document mentions an expired Internet-Draft without 
>> a reference. Since this is not critical for the document, and since 
>> this document is going to be published as an RFC, I would suggest to 
>> delete the draft name, perhaps even the second complete sentence.
> 
> for the authors to indicate the source of this work.  The draft name is 
> not formally referenced intentionally, and is listed to represent a 
> factual past event.
> 
> capitalization is not appropriate.  The corresponding prescriptive text 
> is in section 3.1 and uses 2119 key words (capitalization).
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:07:04 -0400

Miguel,

I don't think there is any real vulnerability here as if a reader 
misinterprets the informative "must" as a "MUST" all they will do to 
implement is follow the specific MUST directives in the next section...

Thank you again for the comments,
Lou

At 02:12 AM 3/26/2008, Miguel Garcia wrote:
>description, you may consider the usage of different words than 
>"must" and "must not", because people sometimes do not realize if 
>these are an oversight or not. I would suggest:
>                                                                  The
>>>and since this document is going to be published as an RFC, I 
>>>would suggest to delete the draft name, perhaps even the second 
>>>complete sentence.
>>Section 2.2 is an Acknowledgments section.  As such, it is 
>>legitimate for the authors to indicate the source of this 
>>work.  The draft name is not formally referenced intentionally, and 
>>is listed to represent a factual past event.