Re: [Bier] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

Valid issue, probably for the AD to ponder on ;-)

 Maybe the following will serve us best here

* 4.6 Specification Required +

* 4.7 RFC Required +

* 4.8 IETF Review

which doesn't precondition Standards track but for all practical purposes
does the full rigmarole otherwise ...


thanks

--- tony

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Peter Yee <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-09
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2017-10-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-16
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26
>
> Summary:  This well-written draft is an Experimental specification for how
> encapsulation is performed in the BIER architecture in order to optimally
> forward a packet through a multicast domain while not being burdensome to
> intermediate routers.
>
> This draft is ready with issues.
>
> Major issues: None.
>
> Minor issues: This Experimental draft specifies that entries to its BIER
> Next
> Protocol Identifiers registry are to be done according to the "Standards
> Action" policy of RFC 8126.  It's not entirely clear to me whether RFC
> 8126's
> requirement that such entries be from Standards Track or BCP documents
> applies
> to the initial set of values.  If it does, then there's an issue here
> between
> RFC 8126 and this draft's desired status.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> General:
>
> Replace "ethernet" with "Ethernet" throughout.
>
> Replace "ethertype" with "Ethertype" or "EtherType" throughout.  (IEEE
> usage is
> varies between the two, unfortunately.)
>
> Specific:
>
> Page 3, second bullet item: change "is" to "are".
>
> Page 4, last paragraph: this paragraph is redundant to one it follows
> fairly
> closely in Section 1.  Consider striking it, although it's not harmful.
>
> Page 5, Section 2.1.1.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "ISIS" to
> "IS-IS".
>
> Page 9, OAM definition, 1st paragraph, second sentence: delete a duplicated
> "the" in the sentence.
>
> Page 10, Section 2.1.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete a duplicated
> "in"
> from the sentence.
>
>