Document: draft-ietf-ospf-multi-area-adj-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-03-20
IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. However, I have some editorial comments that should be addressed first.

Comments:

Disclaimer: I am not an OSPF expert. I assume that others have reviewed this draft for technical correctness.

-- General:

It would be helpful to see a little more coverage on the motivation and background for this draft.

-- Details:

Abstract:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Section 1.2:

The first sentence is confusing and redundant-please rephrase. Also, "There could be a requirement..." seems like a pretty weak motivation; does the requirement exist or not? Please add more background and motivation for why the requirement exists.

Section 1.3, first paragraph:

Please expand OSPF on first use.

Paragraph 3, last sentence:

It's not clear why it might not be acceptable. Policy? Is the support of p2plan inadequate, or uncommon?

Section 1.4, first paragraph, last sentence:

s/consistent/"in a manner consistent"

(or just "consistently")

Section 2.3:

It's not obvious what is intended here. Is this a complete replacement of section 8.2? A replacement of certain paragraphs?  I can infer that you want to replace certain paragraphs by examination, but please be explicit.

Also, it would be helpful to mention that this draft updates [OSPF] in the abstract and/or introduction.

Section 3.1, last sentence:

Can you elaborate on what it means to be "cleaner from a deployment standpoint"?



Section 4:

Are there no updates to RFC 2740?