Hello Jia Thank you for your review.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:08 PM Hejia (Jia) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > The > > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts > as > > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special > > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing > ADs. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would > > be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call > > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion > or by > > updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-09.txt > Reviewer: Jia He > Review Date: 07 October 2019 > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > Intended Status: Standards Track > > Summary: > > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be > > considered prior to publication. > > > Comments: > > The draft is short and the problem to be solved is clear, however, some > nits > > could be fixed to improve the readability. > > Major Issues: > None > > Minor Issues: > 1) The current version updates RFC6987 only. However, there are > modifications to > > RFC2328 as described in the draft. Any thought of adding RFC2328 in the > update? > > > PPE> This has been discussed with the AD and it was deemed that changes are additions to RFC2328 but does not require a change in RFC2328. The conclusion of those discussion are NOT to add RFC2328 in the update. > Nits: > > 1) There are several forms of h-bit throughout the document, e.g. Host-Bit > (H- > > bit),H-Bit, Host Bit.... It is better that they are aligned. > PPE> OK will made the modifications > > 2) Introduction, > > This document describes the Host-bit (H-Bit)functionality that > prevents other OSPFv2 routers from using the router for transit > traffic in OSPFv2 routing domains. > > The difference between "other OSPFv2 routers" and "the router" is not > clearly > > described. How about replacing "the router" with "the host router" or "the > > router with H-bit set"? > PPE> Agree to this suggestion for clarity. > > 3) Section 3, > If the host-bit is NOT set routers MUST act transit routers as > described in [RFC2328] ensuring backward compatibility. > > s/act transit routers/act as transit routers > PPE> Agree to the change > > 4) Section 4, > > If this is a router-LSA, and the H-bit > of the router-LSA is set, and > vertex V is not the root, then the > router should not be used for transit > > s/used for transit/used for transit traffic > > PPE> in this context we meant not to be used as a transit router. > > 5) Section 5, > > To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial > deployment, this document defines a OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA > [RFC7770] with and an area flooding scope and a new bit assigned in > the OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits Registry. > > s/with and/within > > ppe> agree > > 6) Section 5, > " Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional > Capability", > > To get aligned with the naming in the OSPF Router Informational Capability > Bits > > Registry, s/Host Support Functional Capability/Host Router Support > capability > > PPE> Agree to this change > 7) Section 5, > > For example, in a new router > joins an area which previous had only H-bit capable routers with > H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to all > routers. > > s/in a new router joins an area which previous had only H-bit capable > routers > > with H-bit set /when a new router joins an area which previously had only > H-bit > > capable routers with H-bit set > > PPE> Agree to the change > 8) Section 5, > > All routers, with the H-bit set, MUST advertise all of the > router's non-local links with a metric equal to MaxLinkMetric in > its LSAs in order to avoid OSPFv2 (unless last resort) routers not > supporting the H-bit from attempting to use it for transit > traffic. > > s/avoid/prevent > > PPE> we believe avoid is the correct term as for last resort it will not "prevent" the router being used. Thanks Padma > > B.R. > Jia > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
