Thanks for clarifying that. I just noticed that V2 of OSPF had its abbreviation
written out, but not V3
I stand corrected then :)
Stefan Santesson
On 2019-07-15, 13:12, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Stefan,
On 7/15/19, 5:51 AM, "Stefan Santesson via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org>
wrote:
Reviewer: Stefan Santesson
Review result: Has Nits
This document seems to have a reasonable security considerations
section.
As a nit, I notice that the abbreviation OSPF is not written out or
explained
at all in this document. One should hope that most people that find
their way
to this document are familiar with OSPF, but I still believe that is is
appropriate for all IETF RFC to write out and briefly explain/reference
abbreviations.
Note that OSPF is in the list of abbreviations that don't require
expansion - https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
In fact, OSPF had its own WG for more than 20 years __ We only combined
OSPF and IS-IS into LSR less than 2 years back.
Thanks,
Acee
In summary this document seems well written
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
