Re: Working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-02.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

A few small comments:

Section 10.2
RFC 4461 should be normative.
---
In general, it is nice to use the RFC number when you are referencing an 
RFC.
---
Section 4.1
  Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
I think it would be beneficial to explain what "silently ignored" means.
Actually, I think you want to require that unrecognized sub-TLVs must be 
flooded.
---
Section 4.2
As 4.1
---
Section 5.1
  The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST appear at
  most once in an OSPF Router Information LSA.
More natural to say "...and MUST NOT appear more than once..."
---
Section 5.1
  If a TE Node Capability
  Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information
  LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed, other occurrences
  MUST be discarded.
More natural to say "...LSA, the first occurence MUST be processed and 
other..."
However, are you sure that you want to do this discard? You are saying that 
the LSA that is flooded will not be the same as the one received. This seems 
wrong to me, and it is certianly not future-proof.
---
Section 5.1
  An empty TE Node Capability Descriptor MUST be discarded.
Ditto
---
Section 5.1
  Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
  computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
s/MUST not/MUST NOT/
---
Section 5.2
As 5.1
---

If you re-submit to address WG last call comments, please pick up the new 
boilerplate.

Thanks,
Adrian