Re: [OSPF] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18

[Acee Lindem <acee at redback.com>]

Hi Christian,
Thanks taking the time to review this large document. See inline.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Christian Vogt wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
>
> Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18.txt
> Reviewer:  Christian Vogt
> Review Date:  April 10, 2008
>
> Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
>           Standard RFC.
>
> Comments:
>
> This document specifies OSPF for IPv6 networks.  It is very well
> written, clear overall, structured, and easily understandable.  I
> suggest this document to move forward in the publication process.
> Few comments that should be addressed on this way:
>
> (1)  The document, in particular abstract and introduction, is
>      ambiguous on whether (a) it describes extensions/modifications
>      to OSPF for IPv6 support, which would result in an OSPF version
>      for both IPv4 and IPv6, or whether (b) it is a separate OSPF
>      version specifically for IPv6.  The first sentence of the
>      abstract implies (a).  But later the abstract implies (b),
>      because it says that authentication mechanisms have been replaced
>      by IPv6-specific ones, leaving no authentications means for IPv4.
>      Then again, the increment of the OSPF version number specified in
>      section 2.7 indicates that (a) is the case.  Please clarify the
>      purpose and content of the document early in the abstract and
>      introduction.

As you surmised, it is (a). I'll make sure this is clear.


>
> (2)  The document is very consistent WRT to introducing all acronyms
>      (by spelling them out) when they appear first.  Do this for "LSA"
>      also.  See 2nd paragraph of abstract.

I added a bunch of these. I'll make sure I get this one and I'll  
check for other acronyms that require expansion.

>
> (3)  In section 2.5, a special source address selection rule is
>      defined for virtual links.  Is this rule needed specifically for
>      OSPF, or is it specific to virtual links?  If the latter was the
>      case, would it make sense to define this rule more generally  
> in an
>      IPv6 document?

I'd have to say this rule is specific to OSPFv3 virtual links. I  
think the meaning of "virtual link" varies depending on the context  
so I wouldn't try and define behavior beyond OSPFv3. For example, in  
one context a "virtual link" might imply a tunnel while it the OSPFv3  
sense it is a multi-hop adjacency implying any OSPF path through the  
transit area can be used for backbone routing.

Thanks,
Acee



>
> Good luck with the publication,
> - Christian
>
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf