Hi Eric, Thanks for your review and please check inline below for response/clarifications.
-----Original Message----- From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: 05 April 2021 13:03 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-origina...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; aretana.i...@gmail.com; cho...@chopps.org Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-10: (with COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Easy to see the added value for trouble shooting ! Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated). I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Thanks for fixing Warren Kumari's question in the latest -10. -- Section 1 -- Is the reference to RFC 5329 correct ? I fail to see the link of TE with this document. [KT] The reference to RFC5329 is required since it is the one that specified the "IPv6 Router Address" for OSPFv3 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5329#section-3) which is semantically equivalent to what this document is specifying for usage in the Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLV for OSPFv3. Should it be made clearer that the OSPFv3 router ID is a 32-bit value hence cannot be used in an IPv6-only network ? "it does not necessarily represent a reachable address for the router" is slightly ambiguous. [KT] The point was that even for OSPFv2, it does not have to represent a reachable IPv4 address of the router. For OSPFv3, this is obviously not so too. Ack - will fix in the next update. -- Section 2.2 -- Thanks for fixing Warren Kumari's question in the latest -10. -- Section 4 -- Suggestion: made the sentence "A rogue node that can inject prefix..." in a separate paragraph. [KT] Ack - will update in the next version. Thanks, Ketan _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
