Hi Peter, Snipping to open points... > > (1) Please use updated requirement language text as per RFC 8174, as you do > > have a mix of upper-case and lower-case terms in your I-D. > > > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL > > NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", > > "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as > > described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they > > appear in all capitals, as shown here. > > ##PP > RFC 8174 allows the usage of a mix of upper and lower case. If used in > lower case "they have their normal English meanings", which is the case > in this draft. Do you have any specific concerns in that regard? > DD: You are currently using 2119 requirement language in the front page. I am suggested to move to 8174. > > > > (2) Could you mark that the codepoints mentioned in the draft are early > > allocated by IANA? This would make it clear that you are not squatting on them. > > I also suggest following change in Section 7 (IANA Considerations) - > > > > OLD: > > This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv2 > > Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry: > > > > 0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag) > > > > This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv3 > > Prefix Options registry: > > > > 0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag) > > NEW: > > IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following > > code point in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry: > > > > 0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag) > > > > IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following > > code point in the the OSPFv3 Prefix Options registry: > > > > 0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag) > > END > > ##PP > I'm not sure above is necessary, given that the above text would change > eventually to simply say which code points have been allocated. > DD: As a reviewer, when I see code-points in draft, I think this might be a case of squatting on the code-points and then I need to look up archive and IANA to make sure. As the document goes for external reviews I assume this would be the normal reaction, and thus suggest this update to save up effort for the next set of reviewers. But totally up to you to make the change or not :) > > (3) Section 3, Add reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label for the > > definition and usage of ERLD > > ##PP > The Introduction section has: > > "This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as > defined in[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]" > > Is not that sufficient? > This is good, wondering if this should be a normative reference? Thanks! Dhruv
