Subject: [OSPF] Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:23:13 -0400

Lou, Alex, Igor,

I have three categories of comments:

    Technical   - For WG discussion
    Editorial   - Text changes I think are needed
    Suggestions - Style comments based on my own preferences and
                  RFC Editor guidelines. I had a conversation with
                  them in Prague regarding style and improving document
                  readability.

  See section 4 (starting on slide 47) in ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in- 
notes/rfc-editor/tutorial.latest.pdf

    Technical Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt

1. Page 6, First Paragraph - I think we should change "MUST NOT" to
    "MAY". Also, go ahead and make two sentenses rather than  
connecting them
    with a semicolon.

  A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only if it sets the O-bit in the
  options field of its Database Description packets. The O-bit MAY be  
set in
  the options field for other packet types its setting is not mandatory.

I guess I'm not compelled to potentially render existing implementations
in compatible and the "MUST NOT" begs the question of what one does if
it is set in other packet types.

     Editorial Comments on draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-00.txt

   1. Other than in the RFC boilerplate, replace "memo" with "document".
      Both are used in the document but, in the OSPF WG, we work on
      "documents" rather than "memos".

   2. Page 3, section 2 - Replace "Overview" with "Introduction". If you
      run the id-nits script, it will point out that you have neglected
      to include an "introduction" in your document (not your memo :^).

   3. Page 6, second paragraph - Replace "Opaque LSAs MUST placed" with
      "Opaque LSAs MUST be placed".

   4. Page 7, third paragraph, remove the sentense "Each Database
      Description packet MUST have ...". This is not new for opaque  
LSAs.

   5. Page 9, (1) - Singular/Plural problem. Replace "advertise
      themselves as ASBRs." with "will advertise itself as an ASBR.".

   6. Page 9,(2) - Replace "(i.e., ASBR" with "(i.e., the ASBR".

   7. Page 9, Section 7, second paragraph - Replace "Note, that"
      with "Note that".

   8. Page 11, IANA Considerations - Add:

       There are no changes to the IANA number assignment  
requirements from
       RFC 2370 [RFC2370].

       If you don't, I can almost guarentee that they'll ask.

9. Page 13, Section 12.1, second paragraph - Replace
    s "not to forward certain" with not to flood certain".

10. Page 15, third bullect - Replace "MUST NOTE" with "MUST NOT".

      Suggestions based on RFC Editor Guidelines

1. Consistent with RFC Editor guidelines. Replace "types 9, 10 and  
11" with
    "types 9, 10, and 11".

2. Page 6, Section 3.2 - Replace "Summary LSAs and types 9 and 10" with
    "Summary LSAs, type-9 opaque LSAs, and type-10 opaque LSAs".

3. Throughout - Replace Hello packets, Database Description packets  
and" with
     "Hello packets, Database Description packets, and".

4. Page 7, Protocol Data Structues - Replace "uses only, and"
    with "uses only. They" There is a tendency for OSPF documents to  
string
    independent clauses together with ", and". I'd like to reverse  
this trend.

5. Page 8, section 4.1, Neighbor Options - Replace "packets, and" with
    "packets. It" or "packets and".

6. Page 8, section 5, first paragraph - Replace "applications, and" with
    "applications and". At least that is the way I read it.

7. Page 8, section 5, second paragraphs - Split into more than one  
sentense to
    improve readability.

   Type-9 opaque LSAs and type-10 opaque LSAs do not have this problem
   since the receiving router can detect whether or not the  
advertising router
   is reachable within the LSA's respective flooding scope. In the  
case of
   type-9 LSAs, the originating router must be an OSPF neighbor in  
Exchange
   state or greater. In the case of type-10 Opaque LSAs, the intra- 
area SPF
   calculation will determine the advertising router's reachability.

8. Page 9, first sentense - Replace "neither are AS scoped ...." with
      "AS scoped opaque LSAs are not flooded into these area types.".

9. Page 9, Section 6, - Replace "ospfOriginateNewLsas" with
   "ospfOriginateNewLsas,".

10. Page 14, section 12.2 - Replace "future extensibility of OSPF" with
     "future OSPF extensibility".

11. Page 14, figure - Replace "9, 10 or 11 " with  "9, 10, or 11".

12. Page 15, second bullet - Replace "the area that they are
     originated into" with "their area of origin".

Thanks,
Acee

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf