Hello,



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 


The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 


drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 


sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 


assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing 


Directorate, please see ​ 


http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir








Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 


would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 


Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 


discussion or by updating the draft.




Document: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-09
Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review Date: 2015-01-05
IETF LC End Date: n/a
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:
This Document is ready for publication. It has one or two typos.
I have a couple of questions (see Minor Issues).

Comments:


This Document is well written and provides the necessary information and 


context for readers to understand what it specifies.




Minor issues:
   As OSPFv3 Router implementing this specification must select a unique



Is that a must or a MUST? I guess it is a must since it is said 


afterwards that the uniqueness is not 100% guaranteed, but I just wanted 


to make sure.


Yet, since there is a possibility of a Router ID collision, couldn't the 


sentence be rephrased as follows to reflect the reality:



   An OSPFv3 Router implementing this specification must ideally select
   a unique Router ID.


   An OSPFv3 router implementing this specification MUST compare a
   received self-originated Auto-Configuration LSA's Router-Hardware
   Fingerprint TLV against its own router hardware fingerprint. If the
   fingerprints are not equal, there is a duplicate Router ID conflict
   and the OSPFv3 Router with the numerically smaller router hardware
   fingerprint MUST select a new Router ID as described in Section 7.3.



I feel that these two sentences are not crystal clear. Forgive me if it 


is only due to me not being a native English reader.


The second sentence implies that fingerprints between "a received 


self-originated" LSA and a router's own hw fingerprint can be different.


In the first sentence, I read "self" as referring to the router which is 


the subject of that sentence, and I therefore fail to understand how an 


LSA originated by a router could arrive back to that router but with a 


different fingerprint.


Also, the second sentence seems to imply that iff fingerprints are 


different then the Router IDs are the same. I know that we are in a 


section about Duplicate Router ID, but just as for Section 7.1 which 


clearly sets the conditions, it might be worth saying that if 


fingerprints are different and OSPFv3 Router IDs identical then there is 


a duplicate Router ID conflict. But again, this might not be needed if 


my reading of *self* is wrong.





Nits:
   OSPFv3 SHOULD be auto-configured on for IPv6 on all interfaces
Isn't "on" after "auto-configured" superfluous?

s/As OSPFv3 Router implementing/An OSPFv3 Router implementing/

The document uses both "OSPFv3 Router" and "OSPFv3 router".
It may be worth using only one way of writing it.


Thanks

Martin,
wishing you all the best for 2015