Hi Martin, On 1/5/15, 7:07 AM, "Martin Vigoureux" <martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> 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 >http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/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-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-09 >Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux >Review Date: 2015-01-05 >IETF LC End Date: n/a >Intended Status: Proposed Standard > >Summary: >This Document is ready for publication. It has one or two typos. >I have a couple of questions (see Minor Issues). > >Comments: >This Document is well written and provides the necessary information and >context for readers to understand what it specifies. > >Minor issues: > As OSPFv3 Router implementing this specification must select a unique > >Is that a must or a MUST? I guess it is a must since it is said >afterwards that the uniqueness is not 100% guaranteed, but I just wanted >to make sure. >Yet, since there is a possibility of a Router ID collision, couldn't the >sentence be rephrased as follows to reflect the reality: > An OSPFv3 Router implementing this specification must ideally select > a unique Router ID. Ultimately, an OSPFv3 router MUST have a unique OSPFv3 Router-ID (although this may require multiple attempts at selection). How about this? An OSPFv3 router requires a unique Router-ID for correct protocol operation. An OSPFv3 router implementing this specification will select an initial Router-ID with a high probability of uniqueness. …. > > > An OSPFv3 router implementing this specification MUST compare a > received self-originated Auto-Configuration LSA's Router-Hardware > Fingerprint TLV against its own router hardware fingerprint. If the > fingerprints are not equal, there is a duplicate Router ID conflict > and the OSPFv3 Router with the numerically smaller router hardware > fingerprint MUST select a new Router ID as described in Section 7.3. > >I feel that these two sentences are not crystal clear. Forgive me if it >is only due to me not being a native English reader. >The second sentence implies that fingerprints between "a received >self-originated" LSA and a router's own hw fingerprint can be different. >In the first sentence, I read "self" as referring to the router which is >the subject of that sentence, and I therefore fail to understand how an >LSA originated by a router could arrive back to that router but with a >different fingerprint. >Also, the second sentence seems to imply that iff fingerprints are >different then the Router IDs are the same. I know that we are in a >section about Duplicate Router ID, but just as for Section 7.1 which >clearly sets the conditions, it might be worth saying that if >fingerprints are different and OSPFv3 Router IDs identical then there is >a duplicate Router ID conflict. But again, this might not be needed if >my reading of *self* is wrong. I agree that this is not clear since it relies on one deducing that an LSA is perceived as self-originated if it has the same Router ID. How about this: An OSPFv3 router implementing this specification MUST detect received Auto-Configuration LSAs with its Router ID specified in the LSA header. LSAs received with the local OSPFv3 Router's Router ID in the LSA header are perceived as self-originated (see section 4.6 of [OSPFV3]). In these received Auto-Configuration LSAs, the Router-Hardware-Fingerprint TLV is compared against the OSPFv3 Router's own router hardware fingerprint. If the fingerprints are not equal, there is a duplicate Router ID conflict and the OSPFv3 router with the numerically smaller router hardware fingerprint MUST select a new Router ID as described in Section 7.3. > > >Nits: > OSPFv3 SHOULD be auto-configured on for IPv6 on all interfaces >Isn't "on" after "auto-configured" superfluous? Fixed. > >s/As OSPFv3 Router implementing/An OSPFv3 Router implementing/ Fixed. > >The document uses both "OSPFv3 Router" and "OSPFv3 router". >It may be worth using only one way of writing it. These should be "OSPFv3 router” Thanks, Acee > > >Thanks > >Martin, >wishing you all the best for 2015 _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
