Thanks for the review and the catch, Dan. Thanks for the update, Acee. I’m balloting no-obj for today.
Jari On 09 Oct 2015, at 04:01, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for the review - please see inline. > > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:15 PM > To: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04 > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > Resent-To: <[email protected]> > Resent-Date: Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:16 PM > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq > > Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 10/8/15 > IETF LC End Date: 10/8/15 > IESG Telechat date: 10/15/15 > > Summary: > The document is ready with one issue for clarification and minor editorial > observations. > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > > There seems to be an inconsistency between the way padding of the value > fields in the value TLVs is defined in section 2.1, and in 2.3 and 2.5 > respectively. > > In 2.1 we have: ‘The padding is composed of zeros’ > > In 2.2 we have: ‘The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is > defined as in Section 2.1’ This would include the V (value) field, thus the > padding. > > However, in 2.3 and 2.5 the definitions of the value fields stipulate they > are ‘padded with undefined bits’ > > Why this inconsistency? > > This a good catch. I recently added the 'The padding is composed of zeros.' > based on a comment. I should have made it ‘padded with undefined bits’ > consistent was other text in RFC 4970. I’ll fix this. > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. If the TLV definitions within the body of the RI LSA are identical, > it would have been better to separate this in a distinct sub-section. > > Ok. I can do this. > > > 2. Please include a reference to the Vendor Enterprise Code in section > 5.2 > > I will shorten this to “Enterprise Code” with a reference to RFC 5612. T > > These changes are all in the -06 version. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
