--- 1/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05.txt	2020-05-27 11:13:29.584437385 -0700
+++ 2/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-06.txt	2020-05-27 11:13:29.676439725 -0700
@@ -1,30 +1,30 @@
 
 Internet Engineering Task Force                               T. Li, Ed.
 Internet-Draft                                           Arista Networks
 Intended status: Standards Track                          P. Psenak, Ed.
-Expires: November 18, 2020                                   L. Ginsberg
+Expires: November 28, 2020                                   L. Ginsberg
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                  H. Chen
                                                                Futurewei
                                                            T. Przygienda
                                                   Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                                D. Cooper
                                                              CenturyLink
                                                                 L. Jalil
                                                                  Verizon
                                                               S. Dontula
                                                                      ATT
-                                                            May 17, 2020
+                                                            May 27, 2020
 
                     Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs
-                   draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-05
+                   draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-06
 
 Abstract
 
    Routing with link state protocols in dense network topologies can
    result in sub-optimal convergence times due to the overhead
    associated with flooding.  This can be addressed by decreasing the
    flooding topology so that it is less dense.
 
    This document discusses the problem in some depth and an
    architectural solution.  Specific protocol changes for IS-IS, OSPFv2,
@@ -38,21 +38,21 @@
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
    Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
 
-   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 18, 2020.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2020.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
    Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
    (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
@@ -1916,27 +1916,25 @@
 
    IANA is requested to set up a registry called "IGP Algorithm Type For
    Computing Flooding Topology" under an existing "Interior Gateway
    Protocol (IGP) Parameters" IANA registries.
 
    Values in this registry come from the range 0-255.
 
    The initial values in the IGP Algorithm Type For Computing Flooding
    Topology registry are:
 
-      0: Reserved for centralized mode.  Individual values are are to be
-      assigned according to the "Specification Required" policy defined
-      in [RFC8126]
+      0: Reserved for centralized mode.
 
-      1-127: Available for standards action.Individual values are are to
-      be assigned according to the "Private Use" policy defined in
-      [RFC8126]
+      1-127: Available for standards action.  Individual values are to
+      be assigned according to the "Specification Required" policy
+      defined in [RFC8126].
 
       128-254: Reserved for private use.
 
       255: Reserved.
 
 8.  Security Considerations
 
    This document introduces no new security issues.  Security of routing
    within a domain is already addressed as part of the routing protocols
    themselves.  This document proposes no changes to those security