Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Thank you for addressing my Discuss item.
Section 4 Do the two steps listed have to happen in a particular order in order to avoid breakage?
"NoObj" in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem and / or this is outside my area of expertise or have no cycles" sense of the term. I ran out of cycles, and so am relying on the OpsDir review; thanks Tim.
Sec 1: "This document updates [RFC5786] so that a router can also announce one or more local X-AF addresses using the corresponding Local Address sub-TLV. Routers using the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] can include non-TE enabled interface addresses in their OSPF TE advertisements, and also use the same sub-TLVs to carry X-AF information, facilitating the mapping described above." I wonder if this text should use normative language (s/can/MAY/) as this is the part that actually updates RFC5786, however, I didn't check the exact wording in RFC5786...
Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3 routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature. Regards, -éric
I am a co-author.