Just as a heads-up - this document is on the agenda for the next telechat -
I agree with Abhay's suggestions for changes that will appear in the "next
revision", but the next revision hasn't come out yet, at least not that I've
seen.
Thanks!
Spencer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abhay Roy" <[email protected]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alex Zinin" <[email protected]>; "Liem Nguyen" <[email protected]>; "Barry
Friedman" <[email protected]>; "Derek Young" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>; "David Ward"
<[email protected]>; "Acee Lindem" <[email protected]>; "Abhay Roy"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-05.txt
Thanks for the review. Please see inline for comments..
On 11/5/2008 8:34 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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-lls-05.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 2008-11-05
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-10
Summary: This document is on the right track for publication as Proposed
Standard. I have a couple of 2119 questions.
Comments:
The 16-bit LLS Data Length field contains the length (in 32-bit
words) of the LLS block including the header and payload.
Implementations MUST NOT use the Length field in the IP packet header
to determine the length of the LLS data block.
Spencer: I'm not sure this is a 2119 MUST NOT - aren't you just saying
that if you try it, you'll fail?
We discussed about it, and decided to remove the 2nd sentence above.
The CA-TLV MUST only appear once in the the LLS block. Also, when
present, this TLV SHOULD be the last TLV in the LLS block.
Spencer: Why SHOULD and not MUST? At a minimum, I would expect to see
some description of what should happen if CA-TLV is NOT the last TLV in
the LLS block - and if the expectation is that processing continues, I'm
not sure what this sentence means...
The thinking was we could have found the TLV at a "fixed" location to
speed up authenticating the LLS block. But after discussing more on it, we
decided to get rid of this requirement.
I will make the changes in the next revision..
Regards,
-Abhay
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
