Subject: [OSPF] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-14: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 13:18:46 -0800

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-14: Discuss

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-ospfv3-autoconfig/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've trimmed by Discuss to remove the pieces you have handled. Many
thanks for that.

====

> Does this document really update 5340?
> There is no mention of what this update is or why it is considered a
> part of the standard implementation of OSPFv3 to include the features
> described in this document.
>
> I suggest either dropping the update or clarifying how it works.
>
> (Note that idnits should have flagged this to you, but the shepherd
> write-up says that this document doesn't change the status of any
> existing RFCs.)

We discussed this a little, and I got the impression that the conclusion
was that "update" really was intended.

In this case you need to (as also discussed):
- make this clear in the Abstract (as indicated by idnits)
- spend some time in the document (probably the Introduction) explaining
how the update works (which is, I believe you are saying, that all new
implementations of OSPFv3 are expected to include support for this
feature).

I do see that you have added to the Introduction:

   This document describes
   extensions to OSPFv3 to enable it to operate in these environments.

But that is ambiguous. Are the "MUST"s in this document mandatory
behaviour for an implementation of OSPFv3 or for an implementation of
this document which is an option for OSPFv3 implementations? I don't
think this is hard to write down, but I don't know what you are trying to
achieve.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:46:24 +0000

Hi Adrian,
 
I think it should be clear now:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-15.tx
t

I also fixed some misspelling introduced in the -14 version.

Thanks,
Acee