Hi Joel, On 1/4/18, 6:32 PM, "Joel Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Reviewer: Joel Halpern >Review result: Ready > >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-ospf-link-overload-11 >Reviewer: Joel Halpern >Review Date: 2018-01-04 >IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-16 >IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25 > >Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard > >Major issues: > N/A; my concerns from earlier versions have been addressed. > >Minor issues: > I understand the WG likes using the term "overload" for a link being >taken > out of service. I think people will learn what we mean. I do wish >we had > not chosen to misuse the words in this fashion. This is much more a > graceful-link-close indication (or clsoe-pending indication) than it >is an > overload indication. I agree with this comment but I wasn’t sure we’d reach consensus on a better alternative. However, after some though and consideration of current OSPF router terminology, I’d propose we use the term “Pending-Shutdown”. Does anyone not agree that this is a more appropriate moniker for the TLV and state? Thanks, Acee > > >