Subject: Re: [VRRP] COMMENT: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec

From: "Stephen Nadas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:03:30 -0600

Hi Russ, Hi Vijay, 

Thank you for these comments.  I will fix and/or consider clarifications
for the next pass. 

Regards, 
Steve  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 16:48
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: COMMENT: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec 
> 
> Comment:
> 
>   Vijay K. Gurbani made the following suggestions in his Gen-ART
>   Review.  They should be considered by the authors.
> 
>   Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
>   Standard.  Some feedback that will hopefully make the dratf
>   more readable follows.
> 
>   - S1.1
>   s/"IPv4" or "IPv6", in text/"IPv4" or "IPv6".  In this text/
> 
>   - S1.6
>   In the definition of "VRRP Router",
>   s/participate in one/participate as one/
> 
>   - S4.1
>   For either the IPv6 case or the IPv4 case, when Rtr2 transitions
>   to being the Master, is its priority changed to 255?  Or does the
>   priority remain 100, thus allowing Rtr1 to come back up at some
>   later time and reclaim its role as Master?
> 
>   - S4.2
>   s/figure),,/figure),/
> 
>   - S5, second paragraph
>   Do you mean "encapsulated in IPv4 packets" instead of
>   "encapsulated in IP packets"?
> 
>   - S5.1
>   The figure in S5.1 starts with a PDU layout of "Version",
>   "Type", ...  However, the text right underneath the figure talks
>   in terms of IPv4 (and later, IPv6) source/destination addresses
>   and other characteristics.  The PDU fields of "Version", "Type"
>   et al. are not discussed until S5.2.
> 
>   Thus, IMHO there is a disconnect between the figure in S5.1 and
>   the subsequent sub-sections that are supposed to explain the
>   fields in the PDU contained in the figure.  Is this intentional?
> 
>   - S6
>   In the definition of "Priority", how does the reader rank the
>   number indicating priority; i.e., the higher the number, the higher
>   the priority?  Or are they related inversely?  I believe it is
>   the former from reading the draft (i.e., higher the number, the
>   higher the priority); but an explicit sentence may not hurt.
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp