Hi Russ, Thanks for the review. See inline. > On Mar 16, 2024, at 16:51, russ@xxxxxx wrote: > > 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 https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-16 > Reviewer: Russ White > Review Date: 16 March 2024 > IETF LC End Date: 5 April 2024 > Intended Status: copy-from-I-D > > Summary: > Choose from this list... > > This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. > > Comments: > > Beyond the two miro issues/questions below, the draft is readable and well-structured. > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > I don't consider these blockers, just two questions. > > In the abstract: > > > described in RFC 5130. > > My understanding is there should be no references in the abstract (?). Is it still okay to mention a document that would normally include a reference, or should this bit be removed, and a reference to the pertinent RFC inserted later? One can refer to another RFC but not with an actual cited reference, i.e., [RFCXXXX]. You’ll note that all the BIS documents call out the document that is being replaced in the Abstract. > > In the Introduction: > > > The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given that there is no strong requirement or use case. The specification is included here for information. > > I don't see the specification here (?). Maybe the second sentence should be removed? I agree and will remove. We formerly had this in an appendix. Thanks, Acee > > :-) /r -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
