Subject: proxy: comments on draft -18

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:49:14 -0800

Sorry for late posting--been traveling.
Below are comments from a rtg-dir reviewer.
Thanks.

-- 
Alex

        A few comments

        (i).    I agree with the concern voiced on the IDR list
                by Tom Petch (and possibly others), namely, that
                it appears that the FSM specification is
                inconsistent when describing the action that
                places a value in a MIB object when a
                NOTIFICATION is sent.  

        (ii).   It might be useful for section 3 to describe the
                relationship between the various (conceptual)
                RIBs (Adj-RIB-In, Adj-RIB-Out, and Loc-RIB) and
                what we are currently calling a FIB. This,
                however, is not critical to the protocol
                specification. 

        (iii).  Page 23, 3rd paragraph says "The sender of an
                UPDATE message should order ..."

                Is this "should" a "SHOULD" (in the RFC 2119
                sense)? Likewise section 5.1.2 (AS_PATH), section
                a): "the advertising speaker shall not
                modifiy..."

                Actually, there seems to be a lot of use of the
                terms "shall" and "shall not" which are not
                capitalized, so it is unclear what the exact
                meaning is. "may" is also used in the same way.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 08:00:51 -0800

Alex,

> Below are comments from a rtg-dir reviewer.

See Jeff's reply to Tom on this topic.

>                 however, is not critical to the protocol

and therefore the text will stay as is.

>                 meaning is. "may" is also used in the same way. 

Will fix in the next revision.

Yakov.