Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11: Discuss
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-ospf-ospfv2-hbit/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read even if I wonder whether it is useful to spend time on IPv4-only protocol ;-) The deployment issue (section 5) has raised a DISCUSS of mine and I would appreciate a reply on this DISCUSS. Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 5 -- The risk of having inconsistent view of the topology with H-bit aware and unaware routers seems possible to me (albeit perhaps only transient). Has this feature been tested / simulated in large scale networks? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Feel free to ignore my COMMENTs and NIT. == COMMENTS == -- Generic -- Mentioning that the H-bit of OSPFv2 is the reverse of the R-bit of OSPFv3 would be useful. -- Section 1 -- A description of "Closet Switches" would be welcome. -- Section 3 -- Isn't the wording "host router" an oxymoron ? == NITS == -- Section 8 -- I recommend reading and following the suggestions of RFC 8126 (how to write the IANA considerations) _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
