Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-10: 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-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 1: - Expand terms on first use; at least IGP and possibly OSPF, IS-IS, BGP, PIC, etc. - "multi-area/level and/or multi-domain" Is there a reason to split area/level from domain? - "Summarization" appears to be a key concept here. Can you add a pointer to a definition? It's unfortunate that the abbreviation "UP" is being used to indicate that something is down. ===NITS FOLLOW=== Abstract: "the two new flags" haven't been described yet. Maybe drop "the" 1: "OVERLOAD bit" => "the OVERLOAD bit", "high metric" => "a high metric", "all-links" => "all links", "such load" => "such a load", "advertise prefix" => "advertise a prefix" 4.2: Remove comma after "ASBRs" _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
