The OSPF Opaque LSA Option
draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-05

[Ballot discuss]
The IANA considerations section refers to an IANA registry
without giving the precise name of the registry.  As a reader of
the document, this makes it difficult to identify/guess which of
the many OSPF registries is being discussed.

For example, if the text is referring to the "Opaque Link-State
Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" registry, then it should say so.

When discussing an existing registry, the name should exactly match one
of the names on this page: http://www.iana.org/protocols/

[Ballot comment]
Terms NSSA, ASBR used before definition.

Appendix A, or at least Section 12.2 in there must be normative, right? In
fact, I would have expected to the see the format definitions in the body
of the document.

[Ballot discuss]
The IANA considerations section requires review of standards track OSPF
extensions by a designated expert once the OSPF WG has disbanded.  I
would like to understand how this procedure will work and how we can be
sure the requirement is not lost between now and when the OSPF WG is
disbanded.

In addition, the IANA considerations section refers to IANA registries
without giving the precise name of the registry.  Please fix that.

[Ballot discuss]
RFC 2370 said "the O-bit is not set in packets other than Database
Description packets"; this sentence has been changed to "the O-bit
SHOULD NOT be set and SHOULD be ignored when received in packets other
than Database Description packets." SHOULD implies that there may
exist "valid reasons in particular circumstances" to ignore this; the
document should briefly explain what that reason could be, if the
situation has indeed changed from RFC 2370 times.

PROTO writeup by Acee Lindem:

  1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
    Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
    to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes

  2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
    key non-WG members?

Yes - I've reviewed it myself several times.

    Do you have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
   
No

  3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
    particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
    complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No

  4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
    you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
    perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
    or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
    event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
    indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
    those concerns in the write-up.

No

  5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
    others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
    agree with it?

This is a update to an existing RFC, it contains mostly
clarifications and improvements to the existing text. The one
change (requiring reachability for AS-scoped opaque LSA) was
discussed in an IETF meeting and everyone present was in favor
of updating the existing RFC as opposed to accepting a new WG
document.

  6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict
    in separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No

  7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all
    of the ID Checklist items?
idnits 2.04.12

tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-01.txt:
- Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.)
- Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.)

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
    lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA'

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-ospf-mt- - is the name correct?

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update- - is the name
    correct?


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  8. Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Yes

    Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
    also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
    normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
    such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

No - only information references to IDs.

  9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
    Standard, Informational?)

Proposed Standard

10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
    announcement includes a write-up section with the following
    sections:

    * Technical Summary
    * Working Group Summary
    * Protocol Quality

IANA Last Call comments:

ACTION 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will replace references to
[RFC2370] with references to [RFC-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt]
for the following assignmemts:

Registry Name: OSPFv2 Options Registry (8 bits)
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters

Value  Description      Reference
------  ----------------  ---------
0x40    O-bit            [RFC2370]


Registry Name: OSPFv2 Link State (LS) Type
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters

Value    Description                    Reference
-------  ------------------------------  ---------
9        Link-scoped Opaque LSA          [RFC2370]
10      Area-scoped Opaque LSA          [RFC2370]
11      AS-scoped Opaque LSA            [RFC2370]


ACTION 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will replace the reference to
[RFC2370] with a reference to [RFC-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt] for
the following registry:

Registry Name:  Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types
Reference: [RFC2370]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-opaque-types


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.