Acee,
Thanks for the comments. Please see below.
At 02:23 PM 4/6/2007, Acee Lindem wrote:
Lou, Alex, Igor,
I have three categories of comments:
Technical - For WG discussion
Editorial - Text changes I think are needed
Suggestions - Style comments based on my own preferences and
RFC Editor guidelines. I had a conversation with
them in Prague regarding style and improving document
readability.
See section 4 (starting on slide 47) in
<ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf
Technical Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt
1. Page 6, First Paragraph - I think we should change "MUST NOT" to
"MAY". Also, go ahead and make two sentenses rather than connecting them
with a semicolon.
A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets the O-bit in the
options field of its Database Description packets. The O-bit MAY be set in
the options field for other packet types its setting is not mandatory.
okay, but as the meaning of the 0-bit in other
packet types isn't defined, is "SHOULD NOT" acceptable?
I guess I'm not compelled to potentially render existing implementations
in compatible and the "MUST NOT" begs the question of what one does if
it is set in other pacØÛ È=ÿÿÿÿlZb ket types.
agreed, but I think the question is even more relevant with MAY.
Editorial Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt
[..]
okay to all.
Lou
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
