Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2009-03-12 IETF LC End Date: 2009-03-13 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is very close to ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I found one minor issue with the IANA considerations that should be fixed first. I also have a few comments related to editorial issues and nits. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- Section 9.1: This section shows the sub-TLV types as TBD, but at least some of the references sections specify type numbers. Nits/editorial comments: -- general: It would be helpful to have referenceable numbers for the TLV format figures. Using non-mnemonic citations as if they were nouns in a sentence creates extra work for the reader, who must flip back to the references to understand the sentence. That is, the form "...defined in [xxx]". It's better to say "defined in foo [xxx]". It's not as bad with mnemonic citations (e.g. "defined in [foo]"), but it can still cause confusion if text is quoted in other documents without the associated reference section. -- section 2, 2nd paragraph: "The limit of the subdivision results is an RA that contains just two sub-networks interconnected by a single link." I don't follow the last sentence. Is it possible "results is" was meant to be "results in"? -- section 3.1, last paragraph, first sentence: "The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs." incomplete sentence. Is "that" spurious? section 3.2, first paragraph after the figure: "Length is set to Sum[n] [4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV." I'm not sure I understand the expression. -- section 4.1, 3rd paragraph: Please expand LSC and PSC on first use. -- section 6, 3rd paragraph: s/informtation/information -- idnits reports the following: > == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions Section 6.b License Notice > from > 10 Nov 2008 rather than the newer Notice from 12 Feb 2009. > Both versions > are accepted up to the end of March 2009; after that you'll need > to use > the 12 Feb 2009 Notice. (See > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) > > == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but > was > first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the > disclaimer? > (See the Legal Provisions document at > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). >