Reviewer: Barry Leiba
Review result: Has Nits
I understand why it’s easier to do a single document with a batch update, but I
question whether anyone will pay attention to it. Still, until the relevant
documents are organically replaced and these changes are actually folded into
them, this will serve as a placeholder and reminder of the changes that need to
be made.
(As a side issue, I wonder if, as we move toward incorporating verified errata
reports into the display of RFCs, it might make sense to file these also as
errata reports, as this update will not show in such a display.)
I have only one substantive comment:
— Section 8 —
Packet reception and dropping on an
interface not configured with the packet AF, e.g., IPv4 is
possible because a router that doesn't support this specification
can still be included in the SPF calculated path as long as it
establishes adjacencies using the Instance ID corresponding to
the IPv4 AF.
In the conversion away from “black holing”, this sentence became much longer
and somewhat convoluted. I urge you to do some further rework, including
splitting it into two sentences for clarity.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
