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-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues-04 Reviewer: Enrico Marocco Review Date: May 10, 2010 IETF LC End Date: May 10, 2010 Summary: Ready with nits. Nits/editorial comments: Most of the nits are about undefined acronyms and about the case of routing protocol messages. In particular: Abstract, first bullet: s/it has not/It has not/ Abstract, second bullet: s/actually/Actually/ S. 1.1, first para: replace the author names with the reference to a relevant paper. S. 1.1, third para: define "LSA" S. 2, explicitly mention the version in the title, something like: "Open Shortest Path First, version 2 (OSPFv2) S. 2.2, bullet 2 and 3: make the case of "HELLO" and "NULL"consistent; in the reminder of the section it is uppercase. S. 2.2, bullet 5: define "NBMA" S. 3, explicitly mention the version in the title, something like: "Open Shortest Path First, version 3 (OSPFv3) S. 3, second para: define ESP S. 3, second and fourth para: "null", case again. S. 3.1, first para: define "SA" S. 5, third para: rephrase the first sentence; something like the following would probably sound better: "Compared to previously described IGP protocols, BGP has additional exposure due to the nature of the environment where it is typically used, namely between autonomous networks (under different administrative control)." S. 6.1, second bullet: "hello". S. 7, first para: s/nexthop/next hop/ S. 7.1, second bullet: s/spec/specification/ -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
