Hi everyone, For the record, Acee responded to my review off-list, and the preview of version 9 of this draft addresses all of my comments to my satisfaction. Thanks! Ben. On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:20 AM, 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