Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-05
review-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-05-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-10-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-10-08
Requested 2015-09-29
Draft last updated 2015-10-08
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-05-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-10-08
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-10-08

Review
review-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-05-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-10-08






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




For more information, please see the FAQ at




 




http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq




 




Document: draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-04




Reviewer: Dan Romascanu




Review Date: 10/8/15




IETF LC End Date: 10/8/15




IESG Telechat date: 10/15/15




 




Summary:




The document is ready with one issue for clarification and minor editorial observations.




 




Major issues:




None




 




Minor issues:




 




There seems to be an inconsistency between the way padding of the value fields in the value TLVs is defined in section 2.1, and in 2.3 and 2.5 respectively.





 




In 2.1 we have: ‘The padding is composed of zeros’




 




In 2.2 we have: ‘The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is defined as in Section 2.1’ This would include the V (value) field, thus the padding.





 




However, in 2.3 and 2.5 the definitions of the value fields stipulate they are ‘padded with undefined bits’




 




Why this inconsistency? 




 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




1.

      


If the TLV definitions within the body of the RI LSA are identical, it would have been better to separate this in a distinct sub-section.




2.

      


Please include a reference to the Vendor Enterprise Code in section 5.2