Hi Ketan, LGTM generally. Regarding your uses of SHOULD, the updates to refer to Section 7 are helpful. I agree that the other uses are innocuous enough as to be obvious to “one versed in the art”; we shall see if other reviewers agree. I personally am not crazy about RFC 2119 keywords directed at operators rather than implementors (e.g. the first use in Section 10) but I accept that it’s a common pattern.
Regarding the “don’t write bugs” text, if I were reviewing the prior RFC I would also have flagged that one too. I don’t insist that it be removed, but gosh it doesn’t seem to add anything actionable. Remaining open items — Minor: For this text: For the use case in Section 2.1, it is RECOMMENDED that the network operator limit the period of enablement of the reverse metric mechanism only for the duration of a network maintenance window. I suggest For the use case in Section 2.1, it is RECOMMENDED that the network operator limit the period of enablement of the reverse metric mechanism to be only the duration of a network maintenance window. Nits: - I had suggested changing “4 octet” to “4 octets”, was this missed or deliberately not adopted? - s/safegaurd/safeguard/ Regards, —John _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
