Hi Ben, I believe I've addressed your editorial comments and will send a draft copy to yourself and the other authors (not ietf.org). The updated version will also include Nischal Seth's comment regarding the wording inadvertently precluding OSPF point-to-point over LAN interfaces. With respect to your last comment regarding RFC 2740, we do have an update pending but would prefer not to hold up documents referencing RFC 2740. Given the size of the RFC 2740 BIS draft, it could take some time to make it through the process. Thanks, Acee On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > 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