OSPF Two-Part Metric
RFC 8042

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-13 for -09)
No email
send info
Sorry for being dense, but:

3.2.  Advertising Network-to-Router Metric in OSPFv2

   For OSPFv2, the Network-to-Router metric is encoded in an OSPF
   Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV [RFC7684], defined in this document as the
   Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.  The type of the Sub-TLV is TBD2.
   The length of the Sub-TLV is 4 (for the value part only).  The value
   part of the Sub-TLV is defined as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      MT       |        0      |          MT   metric          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I don't believe the document explains what are valid values of the MT field. Help?

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-10 for -09)
No email
send info
If the update to RFC 5340 is kept, it should be mentioned in the abstract.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-11 for -09)
No email
send info
Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com> performed the opsdir review

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-10 for -09)
No email
send info
Two quick questions:

1) Why does this doc update 2328 and 5340? I would assume an TLV extension does not need to update the base protocol.

2) Why is the OSPFv3 extension described in a separate document?

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-10-12 for -09)
No email
send info
abstract: the text doesn't really explain anything to me.  But
then I'm not familiar with OSPF so maybe it's obvious to
someone who is.

intro: expanding LSA, VPLS etc on 1st use would be better.

3.1, 2nd bullet: the text here was very unclear to me

(All that said, the satellite/mobile ground station example 
does enough to ensure that the overall document is clear
so the above are nitty nits:-)

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -09)
No email
send info