Speaking as Document Shepherd and WG member: Hi Ketan, Peter,
I support this work. I didn’t have comments other than editorial. I’ve attached a diff. 1. Used the correct designation for OSPF IANA registry names, i.e., Sub-TLVs vs sub-TLVs. 2. There were multiple variations of “L2 Bundle Member” including “L2 Bundle Member”, “L2 Bundle member”, and L2 bundle member. I used “L2 Bundle Member” when referring to a specific TLV, Sub-TLV, or protocol field and “L2 bundle member” when used to refer generally to the member. I’m not opposed to “Bundle” capitalized and not “member” but would like to understand the reasoning. 3. I reworded the “Security Considerations” to make the glass full rather than empty. I believe the IANA section is consistent with our current OSPF registries. We certainly don’t want to try and recreate the OSPFv3 Extended LSA protocol specifications in the IANA registry. Thanks, Acee From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:51 PM To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bund...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bund...@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call on "Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF" - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-03 This begins a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles. While there hasn’t been as much discussion as I would like on the draft, it is filling a gap in OSPF corresponding to IS-IS Link Bundles (RFC 8668). Please review and send your comments, support, or objection to this list before 12 AM UTC on May 20th, 2022. Thanks, Acee
<<< text/html; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-03.txt.orig - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-l2bundles-03.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
