Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-11-07
Requested 2019-10-24
Authors Keyur Patel, Padma Pillay-Esnault, Manish Bhardwaj, Serpil Bayraktar
Draft last updated 2019-10-31
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by He Jia (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Mohit Sethi (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Kyle Rose
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10-tsvart-lc-rose-2019-10-31
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-10-31


This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

This document is basically ready. I have the following comments:

* LSA should be defined where it is first used.
* I'm curious what happens if a router sets the H-bit when it is on the only
feasible transit path.
* In the security considerations, the document states:

q( The feature, however does introduce the flooding of a capability
   information that allows discovery and verification that all routers
   in an area are capable before turning on the feature )

I'm not sure "flooding" is the right term here, as the communication
comprising the OSPF control plane is not new: only a single bit has a
new meaning. This statement is also worded awkwardly, but without
a clearer understanding of what is meant, I don't know that I can
suggest alternative wording.