Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt

From: Tomonori Takeda <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:03:10 +0900

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing
Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through
IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the
review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful
if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive,
and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 2012-08-10
IETF LC End Date: 2012-08-17
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered
prior to publication.

Comments:

This document defines OSPF extensions to meet the requirements for ASON routing expressed
in RFC 4258. This document obsoletes RFC 5787, which is an experimental version of OSPF
extensions for ASON routing.

Major Issues:

None

Minor Issues:

None

Nits:

1) In Section 4, last line, it says "refer to section 6.1", which should be "refer to
section 6.2".

2) In Section 6.1, last paragraph, there are two places with "the Local and Remote ID
sub-TLV", which should be "the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV".

3) In Section 11.1, 7th line, it says "with RCs in the same RC", which should be "with RCs
in the same RA".

4) In Section 12, requirements from RFC 4258 are listed. I am wondering how these
requirements are picked from RFC 4258. My guess is that requirements are largely from text
with "MUST" "SHALL" "SHOULD" in RFC 4258, but several requirements listed in Section 12
are not clear to me. Specifically,
a) Requirements #7 and #8 - I could not find corresponding text in RFC 4258. Have I missed
something?
b) Requirements #14 and #15 - My reading of RFC 4258 is that these are just "approaches"
and not "requirements".

Thanks,
Tomonori