Hi Russ, Thanks for the review. See inline.
> On Mar 16, 2024, at 16:51, [email protected] wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing > ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last > Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion > or by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-16 > Reviewer: Russ White > Review Date: 16 March 2024 > IETF LC End Date: 5 April 2024 > Intended Status: copy-from-I-D > > Summary: > Choose from this list... > > This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be > considered prior to publication. > > Comments: > > Beyond the two miro issues/questions below, the draft is readable and > well-structured. > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > I don't consider these blockers, just two questions. > > In the abstract: > >> described in RFC 5130. > > My understanding is there should be no references in the abstract (?). Is it > still okay to mention a document that would normally include a reference, or > should this bit be removed, and a reference to the pertinent RFC inserted > later? One can refer to another RFC but not with an actual cited reference, i.e., [RFCXXXX]. You’ll note that all the BIS documents call out the document that is being replaced in the Abstract. > > In the Introduction: > >> The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given that there >> is no strong requirement or use case. The specification is included here for >> information. > > I don't see the specification here (?). Maybe the second sentence should be > removed? I agree and will remove. We formerly had this in an appendix. Thanks, Acee > > :-) /r _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
