Hi Giuseppe, thanks for your comments, please see inline: On 29/05/2025 12:14, Giuseppe Fioccola via Datatracker wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce Title: IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola Review result: Has Nits This document defines two new flags in IS-IS and OSPF to signal loss of reachability to an individual prefix in case of summarization. I think that it has a well defined scope and is almost ready for publication. In this regard, I noticed the normative reference to draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags, which, I guess, will be published before this document.
yes, I will update the reference when that draft changes to RFC.
I have only few minor comments for your consideration: - In the Abstract, I suggest to replace 'In the presence of summarization,' with 'Summarization is often used in IGP to improve network efficiency, but'.
will do.
- In the Introduction, I suggest to swap the last two paragraphs, otherwise it is not clear how they are sequential.
will do
- Section 4 on "Generation of the UPA" could be moved before section 2 on "Supporting UPA in IS-IS" and section 3 on "Supporting UPA in OSPF". I think it would be more logical.
will do
- Section 6 on "Deployment Considerations for UPA" seems to discuss only the case of area/domain partition. I would also highlight what are the operational benefits of UPA, as briefly mentioned in the Introduction.
Maybe we can rename the section 6 to "Area Partition".
- In section 9 on "Security Considerations", you can also add the reference to RFC7794 and draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags.
will do. thanks, Peter
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
