Hi Dhruv,
On 03/10/2019 16:14, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
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.
##PP2
sure, I can do that.
(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?
##PP2
I can make that informative.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks!
Dhruv
