Hi Barry, Thanks for the review.
On 8/14/15, 1:13 PM, "Barry Leiba" <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: >Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10: No Objection > >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 https://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: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Some minor comments, just some clarifications... and a question about the >registries. > >-- Section 2 -- >There is no explanation of the "length" field in the OSPFv2 Extended >Prefix Opaque LSA. I guess it's the total size, in bytes, of all the TLV >data that follows, including any alignment bytes. But you should make >that clear. The LSA header length, as defined in RFC 2328, is pretty standard. However, this can be succinctly clarified. How about? The LSA “Length” field [RFC2328] represents the total length (in octets) of the Opaque LSA including the LSA header and all TLVs (including padding). > >-- Section 3 -- >The same comment as for Section 2 applies here for the OSPFv2 Extended >Link Opaque LSA. Same answer. > >-- Section 7.1 -- > > Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. > Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there > MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that > covers the range being assigned. > >A question here (I'm not hoping for any particular answer, just asking >the question): When you say "an IETF specification", I take that to mean >an RFC in the IETF stream, which can be Standards Track *or* >Informational *or* Experimental. Is that what you want? Yes. I’d like to leave this open. I’d hope we’d do the right thing when the time comes to assign this space. Thanks, Acee > >The same question applies to the registries in the subsequent sections >(7.2, 7.3, 7.4). > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
