Hi Chris, > On Feb 13, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > >> On Feb 13, 2023, at 2:56 PM, Chris Parker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> First time poster here. Sincere apologies if I make any mistakes in >> etiquette. I work at Juniper, and am mailing on suggestion of Shraddha >> Hegde, after a conversation about draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo. >> >> Having read the draft, I think I've found two tiny things to fix. >> >> The first is a typo: In the text "The following values area allocated by >> IANA from this registry for Flex-Algorithms", I think it should say "are", >> not "area”. > > This is definitely a typo.
This has already been fixed in the RFC Editor version. Thanks, Acee > >> >> The second is a point of clarification in the text "The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV >> has an area scope". I think perhaps this should be "level scope", not "area >> scope". > > I can’t seem to find similar IS-IS terminology. I’ll defer to the authors. > However, you’d be correct for OSPF. > >> >> For example, imagine a level 2 backbone that contains four areas. I would >> imagine the intended behavior is actually to flood this sub-TLV through the >> entire level 2 backbone, rather than just to the other routers in the >> particular area that the originator happens to reside in? >> >> Hopefully these are useful changes. Apologies once again if I've made any >> errors in this process. > > Speaking as WG Co-Chair - This is definitely the right process and we look > forward to your future reviews of LSR documents!!! > > Thanks, > Acee > > >> >> Best regards >> Chris Parker >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
