John:

Thanks for the comments, we'll change the text
and submit the new version soon.

--
Alex Zinin
Wednesday, January 17, 2001, 7:11:26 AM, Moy, John wrote:
> Alex, Acee, Derek-
> (Sorry for the incomplete previous message)
> Concerning the document "Alternative OSPF ABR Implementations",
> draft-ietf-ospf-abr-alt-03.txt. It seems to me that the most
> valuable part of this document is the problem statement in
> Section 1.2. This describes what can happen when an ABR is not
> connected to the backbone, and is a good subject for an Informational
> RFC. Also, another document that we're trying to publish,
> draft-ietf-ospf-shortcut-abr-02.txt, references this discussion.
> However, I think that there are a couple of issues with the rest
> of the document.
> First, documenting the non-standard behavior of a couple of
> OSPF implementations, while valuable for network operators,
> will become confusing if/when those implementations change (as
> Alex had said cisco might at the last IETF). Perhaps this can
> be fixed by documenting the particular software releases where
> the description was/is valid, and explicitly saying that they
> are subject to future changes.
> Second, since I don't think that we are trying to encourage
> other implementations to change to match this document
> (if we did, we would be making it a proposed standard), I think
> that we don't need all the implementation details it contains.
> The document would be clearer, easier to read, and shorter,
> if Section 2.2 just hit the high level changes and Sections 3, 3.1,
> and 3.2 were simply deleted.
> John
>  <<John Moy (E-mail).vcf>>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]