Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-06 CC @larseggert Thanks to Paul Kyzivat for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/IqLhVi63YKAt6GINPOKUQ0sGt3g). I'm raising Paul's review comment as a DISCUSS: ``` 2) MINOR: Section 2: Normative requirements on future documents While I don't fully understand all the document dependencies, the following normative requirement: ... Specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV MUST indicate their applicability for the L2 Bundle Member Attributes Sub-TLV. An implementation MUST ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context of the L2 Bundle Member Attribute Sub-TLV. looks to me like it may be imposing requirements on future work that may not itself be aware of or normatively linked to this document. The registry in question is defined only by RFC7684. Figure 2 further supports this point by effectively revising the format for the registry, adding an additional column. I suggest it would be appropriate to formally update the registry to reference this document to impose requirements on future registrations, and add a column indicating applicability in the context of the L2 Bundle Member Attribute Sub-TLV. The same logic applies to Figure 3 and the IANA OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs registry. I suggest the same sort of fix for it. ``` ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos #### Section 2, paragraph 3 ``` - assymetric for an OSPF link depending on the underlying layer 2 - - + asymmetric for an OSPF link depending on the underlying layer 2 + + ``` ### Grammar/style #### Section 2, paragraph 2 ``` member link is operationally up. Therefore advertisements of member links MU ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore". #### Section 2, paragraph 19 ``` which the OSPF protocol operates. Therefore the security considerations of th ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore". ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
