Hi Adrian, I think it should be clear now: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-15.tx t
I also fixed some misspelling introduced in the -14 version. Thanks, Acee On 2/9/15, 4:18 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: >Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-14: Discuss > >When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >introductory paragraph, however.) > > >Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >DISCUSS: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I've trimmed by Discuss to remove the pieces you have handled. Many >thanks for that. > >==== > >> Does this document really update 5340? >> There is no mention of what this update is or why it is considered a >> part of the standard implementation of OSPFv3 to include the features >> described in this document. >> >> I suggest either dropping the update or clarifying how it works. >> >> (Note that idnits should have flagged this to you, but the shepherd >> write-up says that this document doesn't change the status of any >> existing RFCs.) > >We discussed this a little, and I got the impression that the conclusion >was that "update" really was intended. > >In this case you need to (as also discussed): >- make this clear in the Abstract (as indicated by idnits) >- spend some time in the document (probably the Introduction) explaining >how the update works (which is, I believe you are saying, that all new >implementations of OSPFv3 are expected to include support for this >feature). > >I do see that you have added to the Introduction: > > This document describes > extensions to OSPFv3 to enable it to operate in these environments. > >But that is ambiguous. Are the "MUST"s in this document mandatory >behaviour for an implementation of OSPFv3 or for an implementation of >this document which is an option for OSPFv3 implementations? I don't >think this is hard to write down, but I don't know what you are trying to >achieve. > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
