Document: draft-ietf-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues-04
Reviewer: Enrico Marocco
Review Date: May 10, 2010
IETF LC End Date: May 10, 2010

Summary: Ready with nits.

Nits/editorial comments:

Most of the nits are about undefined acronyms and about the case of
routing protocol messages. In particular:

Abstract, first bullet: s/it has not/It has not/

Abstract, second bullet: s/actually/Actually/

S. 1.1, first para: replace the author names with the reference to a
relevant paper.

S. 1.1, third para: define "LSA"

S. 2, explicitly mention the version in the title, something like: "Open
Shortest Path First, version 2 (OSPFv2)

S. 2.2, bullet 2 and 3: make the case of "HELLO" and "NULL"consistent;
in the reminder of the section it is uppercase.

S. 2.2, bullet 5: define "NBMA"

S. 3, explicitly mention the version in the title, something like: "Open
Shortest Path First, version 3 (OSPFv3)

S. 3, second para: define ESP

S. 3, second and fourth para: "null", case again.

S. 3.1, first para: define "SA"

S. 5, third para: rephrase the first sentence; something like the
following would probably sound better: "Compared to previously described
IGP protocols, BGP has additional exposure due to the nature of the
environment where it is typically used, namely between autonomous
networks (under different administrative control)."

S. 6.1, second bullet: "hello".

S. 7, first para: s/nexthop/next hop/

S. 7.1, second bullet: s/spec/specification/