Subject: Please review: draft-bhatia-manral-diff-isis-ospf-01.txt

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:55:04 -0700

Folks-

 The following draft has been submitted to the ADs for publication
 as INFO RFC. Please read it and send your comments to the RTG Area
 mailing list ([email-masked]).

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhatia-manral-diff-isis-ospf-01.txt

>                    IS-IS and OSPF Difference Discussions
>                  draft-bhatia-manral-diff-isis-ospf-01.txt 
...
> Abstract
>     
>    The increasing popularity of IS-IS [IS-IS] and OSPF [OSPF] over    
>    the years has drawn significant attention to the relative merits and 
>    de-merits of one with respect to the other. This draft presents an 
>    elaborate comparison between the two routing protocols to explain how 
>    the features and functionalities of one differs from the other. 
>    Wherever applicable the differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3[OSPFv3] 
>    have also been pointed out. 
>  

 Thank you.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:29:15 +0100

Hi Alex,

It is not immediately clear what the purpose of the I-D is. Yes, it makes
comparisons between the two IGPs, but for what purpose? Is this purely an
informational exercise ? Perhaps it would be nice if the I-D had a more
specific purpose to help guide operators in the choice of which IGP to
deploy in different environments. This would, of course, require a little
more applicability analysis.

I don't have time/energy to do a detailed technical review. But here are a
few nits from a quick skim.

Non-ASCII characters need fixing.

Whole text would benefit from tidying and native language review (no
criticism - just fact).

Section 5.2
What is meant by the annotation [*]?

Section 7
Reference to section 13 should read 14

Section 11
Unresolved reference [X]

Section 19
I would like to see more comments about multi-area/level deployment
experience.

Section 22
I would like to see discussion of GMPLS extensions

Section 23
Odd that ISIS is cited as the reason for moving the OSPF RFC1745 to
Historical.

Section 28
Quite amusing really!

Section 29
References need to be split into normative and informational.

Section 34
Time moves ever onwards.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:22:59 +0200

I commented on the rtgwg list that I think there is a need for this document
from the IETF but have problems with it in its current form over the level of
detail it goes into. I want to see more spelling out of the context into which
the detail then fits, especially with the different sets of terminology in use;
I suspect that this as more than a change in the wording that Adrian calls for.

Tom Petch