Thanks, all. Jari
On 08 Aug 2016, at 19:40, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote: > That should work :) > > Thanks! > > Regards, > > Christer > > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 08 August 2016 20:39 > To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02 > > Christer – > > I will place a reference in the Introduction – something like: > > “[ISO10589} defines the format of a Link State PDU (LSP) which includes a > Remaining Lifetime field…” > > Hope that will suffice. > > Les > > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 10:28 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02 > > Hi, > > >Thanx for your review. > > > >ISO 10589 is the base specification for IS-IS and there is a reference to it > >in the document. > >This is where you will find details about Link State PDUs. > > > >I would be reluctant to include any sort of summary description of an LSP in > >this document out of fear that it might be seen as differing from the base > >protocol specification. > > I think it would be useful to place that reference also in the Abstract, and > in the problem statement, before you start talking about the LSP. > > You don’t have to add an LSP description, simply a reference so that it is > easy for me to know where to get more information - without having to look > for the reference elsewhere in the document :) > > Regards, > > Christer > > > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2016 10:03 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > Document: draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 6 August 2016 > IETF LC End Date: 15 August 2016 > IETF Telechat Date: N/A > > Summary: > The document is well written, and almost ready for publication as a standards > track RFC, but I have a couple of editorial comments that I’d like the > authors to address. > Major Issues: None > Minor Issues: None > Editorial Issues: > The Abstract says: > “Corruption of the Remainining Lifetime Field in a Link State PDU can go > undetected. In certain scenarios this may cause or exacerbate flooding > storms. It is also a possible denial of service attack vector. This > document defines a backwards compatible solution to this problem.” > …and the first sentence of the Problem Statement says: > “Each Link State PDU (LSP) includes a Remaining Lifetime field.” > I have no idea what a Link State PDU is, and there is no introduction to what > the draft is all about. The text jumps direction into the work. > So, please add a reference to Link State PDU (LSP), and please give a little > bit of introduction text what context/environment this is all about. I assume > there is some core document which describes the context/environment where the > Link State PDU is used? > > _______________________________________________ > 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
