Thomas, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-9-9, at 15:57, Thomas Fossati via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Thomas Fossati > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-?? > Reviewer: Thomas Fossati > Review Date: 2022-09-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-20 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > This is a clear and easy to read document, thank you authors for the > great job. > > I only have a couple of very minor issues / clarifications. The tail of > my review consists of a bunch of typographic nits and one suggestion for > how to align the Contributors section to most recent interpretations of > the RFC Style Guide (RFC7322). > > Major issues: none > > Minor issues: > > * It looks that the H and O flags are mutually exclusive? If so, I > think the fact should be made explicit. (This applies to both the > reverse and reverse TE metrics.) > > * "If authentication is being used [...] then the Cryptographic > Authentication TLV [RFC5613] SHOULD also be used to protect the > contents of the LLS block." Please explain why this is not a MUST, > i.e., under which conditions it is OK to not authenticate the LLS > block. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 1., paragraph 1: > OLD: > Thus the configuration on R1 influences the traffic that it forwards > > NEW: > Thus, the configuration on R1 influences the traffic that it > forwards > > > Section 2.1., paragraph 2: > OLD: > when a large number of CE routers connect to a PE router, an > > NEW: > when many CE routers connect to a PE router, an > > > Section 2.1., paragraph 3: > OLD: > router to advertise the maximum metric for that link and also to > [...] > returns to using its provisioned metric for the link and also stops > > NEW: > router to advertise the maximum metric for that link and to > [...] > returns to using its provisioned metric for the link and stops > > > Section 2.2., paragraph 2: > OLD: > reverse metric to some or all of the R1-RN routers. When the R1-RN > > NEW: > reverse metric to some or all the R1-RN routers. When the R1-RN > > > Section 3., paragraph 1: > OLD: > This ensures that the RM signaling is scoped ONLY to each specific > [...] > Metric TLV in its Hello packets on the link as long as it needs its > [...] > > NEW: > This ensures that the RM signaling is scoped only to each specific > [...] > Metric TLV in its Hello packets on the link for as long as it needs > its [...] > > > Section 6., paragraph 4: > OLD: > instability in the network due to churn in their metric due to > signaling of RM: > > NEW: > instability in the network due to churn in their metric caused by > signaling of RM: > > > Section 6., paragraph 7: > OLD: > RM metric signaling based on the RM metric signaling initiated by > some other router. > > NEW: > RM metric signaling based on the RM metric signaling initiated by > some other routers. > > > Section 6., paragraph 10: > OLD: > (also refer to Section 7 for details on enablement of RM). The > rules [...] > > NEW: > (refer to Section 7 for details on enablement of RM). The rules > [...] > > Section 7., paragraph 5: > OLD: > For the use case in Section 2.1, it is RECOMMENDED that the network > operator limit the period of enablement of the reverse metric > > NEW: > For the use case in Section 2.1, it is RECOMMENDED that the network > operator limits the period of enablement of the reverse metric > > > Section 9., paragraph 1: > OLD: > This document allocates code points from Link Local Signalling TLV > Identifiers registry for the TLVs introduced by it as below. > > NEW: > This document allocates code points from the Link Local Signalling > TLV Identifiers registry for the introduced TLVs. > > > Regarding the Contributors section, I think BCP is to make it similar to > the Authors section, e.g.: > > Section 11., paragraph 1: > OLD: > Thanks to Jay Karthik for his contributions to the use cases and the > review of the solution. > > NEW: > Jay Karthik > Cisco Systems, Inc. > Email: jakarthi@xxxxxxxxx > > Jay contributed to the use cases and the review of the solution. > > > If you are using kramdown-rfc you can add this snippet after your > "author" block > > contributor: > - name: Jay Karthik > email: jakarthi@xxxxxxxxx > contribution: Jay contributed to the use cases and the review of the solution. > > Otherwise (xml2rfc): > > <contact initials="J." surname="Karthik" fullname="Jay Karthik"> > <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> > <address> > <email>jakarthi@xxxxxxxxx</email> > </address> > </contact> > <t> > Jay contributed to the use cases and the review of the solution. > </t> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
