Subject: [OSPF] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:27:38 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of minor, non-blocking comments, just looking for a little
clarification:

-- Section 7 --

I can't imagine that the "SHOULD" in the first paragraph is an
appropriate 2119 key word: no one can tell whether or not care was taken,
so this can't be a protocol issue.  Please just say "Therefore it is
important to set these values carefully."

For the remaining "SHOULD"s, "SHOULD NOT", and "RECOMMENDED" in this
section: remembering that "SHOULD" means that "there may exist valid
reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the
full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before
choosing a different course," how can someone reading this understand and
weigh those implications?  I can't: I have no idea why these
recommendations are being made, and what the implications are of making
different choices.  Can you help me here?  Or are these just recommended
values, in the lower-case, plain English sense?