I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2008-03-20 IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. However, I have some editorial comments that should be addressed first. Comments: Disclaimer: I am not an OSPF expert. I assume that others have reviewed this draft for technical correctness. -- General: It would be helpful to see a little more coverage on the motivation and background for this draft. -- Details: Abstract: Please expand OSPF on first use. Section 1.2: The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase. Also, "There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak motivation; does the requirement exist or not? Please add more background and motivation for why the requirement exists. Section 1.3, first paragraph: Please expand OSPF on first use. Paragraph 3, last sentence: It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the support of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon? Section 1.4, first paragraph, last sentence: s/consistent/"in a manner consistent" (or just "consistently") Section 2.3: It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete replacement of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs? I can infer that you want to replace certain paragraphs by examination, but please be explicit. Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF] in the abstract and/or introduction. Section 3.1, last sentence: Can you elaborate on what it means to be "cleaner from a deployment standpoint"? Section 4: Are there no updates to RFC 2740? _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf