Reviewer: Tero Kivinen Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document allocates a code point for OSPFv3 for MPLS LSP Ping and updates previous allocation to only cover OSPFv2. It also defines behavior when using IPv6 with OSPv3. This document is quite short but hard to ready because of heavy use of acronyms and just referencing code points with numbers and same with RFCs. The security considerations section just says: This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations. And I am not completely sure if that is true, if this document really allows using IPv6 when it was not possible before. Quite often having multiple address families do cause new security considerations too. Also RFC8287 refers to the RFC8029 for its security considerations, so perhaps direct reference to RFC8029 would be needed here. There are several acronyms which are not expanded on their first use (including in title, and in abstract). Examples of such are IS, TLV, OSPF, IS+IS, IGP, SUb-TLV (is the spelling correct in abstract with uppercase u?), FEC. The use of just RFC numbers in reference format makes the document hard to read as not everybody remembers what RFC is RFC number 8287, 8402 etc. It would be much nicer to at least on the first time use the format where the text refers to RFC with title or similar and just has the reference in parenthesis, i.e.: RFC5340 "OSPF for IPv6" ([RFC5340]) describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) to support IPv6. RFC5838 "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" ([RFC5838]) describes the mechanism to support multiple address families (AFs) in OSPFv3. Accordingly, OSPFv3 may be used to advertise IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes. is easier for reader than current format: [RFC5340] describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) to support IPv6. [RFC5838] describes the mechanism to support multiple address families (AFs) in OSPFv3. Accordingly, OSPFv3 may be used to advertise IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes. Or, as the rfc title tells what the RFC is about you do not need to explain it that much you can simply say: RFC5340 "OSPF for IPv6" ([RFC5340]) describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) and RFC5838 "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" ([RFC5838]) describes how OSPFv3 may be used to advertise IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes. Also someone who is not at all familiar with this it is bit hard to know what are Type 34, 35, and 36 in Segment Id Sub-TLV registry. As a personal note, I have never liked to just use the reference inside text (for example "This document updates [RFC8287] ...") as in case the RFC rendering engine decides to render references in some other way than just text with [] around it, the text might get unreadable (For example it replaces the text inside [] with number or footnote or similar). Thats why I myself usually want to write those either as "This document updates RFC8287 ([RFC8287])..." or even "This document updates RFC8287..." as RFC8287 is referenced so many times in the document that there is no need to make each instance a reference. But this is just my personal view, and authors might have different views... -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
