Hi Peter, Thank you for considering my comments. Please see inline [GF]. Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 5:29 PM To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@xxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06 ietf last call Opsdir review 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. [GF]: Yes > > 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. [GF]: Ok > > - In the Introduction, I suggest to swap the last two paragraphs, > otherwise it is not clear how they are sequential. will do [GF]: Ok > > - 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 [GF]: Ok > > - 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". [GF]: If the goal is to discuss only Area Partition, I agree to rename the title of the section. > > - In section 9 on "Security Considerations", you can also add the > reference to > RFC7794 and draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags. will do. [GF]: Ok thanks, Peter > > > > -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
