On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:43 PM John Scudder <jgs= [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All, > > I just did a full read-through of -01. Without denigrating any other > solutions, I support adoption of this one. > > I do have a few comments and nits, below. > > - Paragraph 2 of section 9 is unclear, IMO; I hope this can be improved in > the next version. It reads exactly like a protocol expert writing for > another protocol expert; as we know, a good spec has to be written so that > as little as possible is left to the creativity of the implementor. This > paragraph seems to require creativity. > yepp, would benefit from an example. Nothing speaks against that. > > - Please decide whether to do the right thing, and call the protocol > “IS-IS”, or the wrong thing, and call it “ISIS”. Whatever the decision, > standardize on that one instead of randomly adding and dropping hyphens. > no opinion but Les will keep me honest ;-) > > - Section 8 mentions “route reflector clients”, probably what was meant > was “flood reflector clients”. > oops ;-) Sincerest form of flattery ;-) -- tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
