Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-ls-link-infinity-23: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-ls-link-infinity/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# IESG review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-ls-link-infinity-23

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 6, paragraph 0

Please add links to the relevant registries.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 2.2, paragraph 11
```
- 3.  LSLinkInfinity Based Solution
-                   ^
+ 3.  LSLinkInfinity-Based Solution
+                   ^
```

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 7
```
-    metric of LSLinkInfinity MUST be treated as unreachable.  Upon
-                                                              ^^
-    detection of a change in the number of routers in the area not
+    metric of LSLinkInfinity MUST be treated as unreachable.  When the number
of routers in the area not +                                                   
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +++++++++++ +++++++++++++ ```

#### Section 3.3, paragraph 4
```
-    [RFC5340] to prevent usage stub router links for transit traffic.
+    [RFC5340] to prevent the usage of stub router links for transit traffic.
+                         ++++     +++
```

#### Section 5, paragraph 2
```
-    The security considerations for [RFC2328],[RFC5340], [RFC6987], and
+    The security considerations for [RFC2328], [RFC5340], [RFC6987], and
+                                              +
```

#### Section 5, paragraph 3
```
-    SSH [RFC4252], TLS [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and
-                                                  ^^^
+    SSH [RFC4252], TLS [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], or QUIC [RFC9000]) and
+                                                  ^^
```

### URLs

These URLs in the document did not return content:

 *
 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ospf-functional-cap-bits/iana-ospf-functional-cap-bits.xhtml

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4.2.5, paragraph 8
```
egistry with all spaces replaced with “-“. The "identity" statement should ha
                                      ^ ^
```
Please do not use "smart-quotes".



_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to