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-ospfv2-hbit-09.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: 07 October 2019
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.
Comments:
The draft is short and the problem to be solved is clear, however, some nits
could be fixed to improve the readability.
Major Issues:
None
Minor Issues:
1) The current version updates RFC6987 only. However, there are modifications to
RFC2328 as described in the draft. Any thought of adding RFC2328 in the update?
Nits:
1) There are several forms of h-bit throughout the document, e.g. Host-Bit (H-
bit),H-Bit, Host Bit It is better that they are aligned.
2) Introduction,
This document describes the Host-bit (H-Bit)functionality that
prevents other OSPFv2 routers from using the router for transit
traffic in OSPFv2 routing domains.
The difference between "other OSPFv2 routers" and "the router" is not clearly
described. How about replacing "the router" with "the host router" or "the
router with H-bit set"?
3) Section 3,
If the host-bit is NOT set routers MUST act transit routers as
described in [RFC2328] ensuring backward compatibility.
s/act transit routers/act as transit routers
4) Section 4,
If this is a router-LSA, and the H-bit
of the router-LSA is set, and
vertex V is not the root, then the
router should not be used for transit
s/used for transit/used for transit traffic
5) Section 5,
To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial
deployment, this document defines a OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA
[RFC7770] with and an area flooding scope and a new bit assigned in
the OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits Registry.
s/with and/within
6) Section 5,
" Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional
Capability",
To get aligned with the naming in the OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits
Registry, s/Host Support Functional Capability/Host Router Support capability
7) Section 5,
For example, in a new router
joins an area which previous had only H-bit capable routers with
H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to all
routers.
s/in a new router joins an area which previous had only H-bit capable routers
with H-bit set /when a new router joins an area which previously had only H-bit
capable routers with H-bit set
8) Section 5,
All routers, with the H-bit set, MUST advertise all of the
router's non-local links with a metric equal to MaxLinkMetric in
its LSAs in order to avoid OSPFv2 (unless last resort) routers not
supporting the H-bit from attempting to use it for transit
traffic.
s/avoid/prevent
B.R.
Jia
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
