Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-11

<pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 27 April 2011 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF94E069F; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vDIEQGyG9j5s; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C775E06EC; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 716FF8B8014; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:05:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11A09B0005; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:03:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:00:07 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:00:06 +0200
Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201A8EE0B@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4DB82017.1010303@cnnic.cn>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: apps-team review of draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-11
Thread-Index: AcwE4q+8gO8RgRe7Sy6sXEEtEgbnzQAAEujg
References: <4DB82017.1010303@cnnic.cn>
From: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
To: lee@cnnic.cn, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mif-current-practices@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, denghui02@gmail.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2011 14:00:07.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A85C260:01CC04E3]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:02:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-11
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:06:48 -0000

Thanks for the review. Please see inline

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Xiaodong Lee [mailto:lee@cnnic.cn]
> Envoyé : mercredi 27 avril 2011 15:55
> À : apps-discuss@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mif-current-
> practices@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; denghui02@gmail.com
> Objet : apps-team review of draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-11
> 
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for
> this draft (for background on apps-review, please see
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-11
> Title: Current Practices for Multiple Interface Hosts
> Reviewer: Xiaodong Lee
> 
> Review Date: April 26, 2011
> 
> Review Summary:
> This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC but
> has a few issues that suggested to be fixed before publication.
> 
> Major Issues:
> This draft gives the introduction about the multiple-interface solutions
> implemented in some widely used operating systems. It seems that this
> draft just simply introduces or lists every example. The author might
> consider the following suggestions:
>      - Do some simple analysis of pros and cons of every implementation
> or solution;
>      - Compare different solutions and make some possible suggestions.
> Since this draft aims for an informational RFC, doing some analysis and
> comparison will be helpful for the readers.
> 

Another document that analyzes current practice is chartered. This document will address above points.

> Minor issues:
> - Both the "multiple-interface" and the "multi-interface" are used in
> this document with the same meaning.
> - Term "PEERDNS" might have reference.
> 

Ok

> 
> Nits:
> - In Section 3.2.2.3, second paragraph, third sentence:
>                  "become" should be "becomes" here.

Ok

> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> --
> Xiaodong Lee,
> VP&CTO, CNNIC
> Professor, Chinese Academy of Sciences