Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-09

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:18:27 -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-af-alt-09
Reviewer..........:  Christian Vogt
Review date.......:  December 2, 2009
IESG Telechat date:  December 3, 2009

Summary:  This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
          that should be fixed before publication.

The document describes small modifications to the OSPFv3 protocol that
enable the use of OSPFv3 for multiple address families simultaneously.
The document is well-written and concise, and is ready for publication.
However, one nit that should be fixed is the following editorial one:

The document uses the acronym "AF" both to denote the term address
family, as well as to refer to the OSPF extensions being specified in
the document (e.g., in the definition of the AF bit in section 2.2).
This is confusing, in particular because "AF" is explicitly defined only
to mean the former, not the latter.  I suggest using a different name,
e.g., "AF support", to denote the OSPF extensions being specified, and
adding a definition for this to the introduction of the document.

In section 3, "Backwards Compatibility", it may furthermore be worth
mentioning that all modifications to OSPFv3, as specified in this
document, exclusively affect the use of OSPFv3 for new address families.
Since this is a prerequisite for backwards compatibility, it will
further support the backwards compatibility claim of this section.

- Christian