Re: [forces] [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR review of ForCES Inter-FE LFB (draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb-04.txt)

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.com>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3001612DA6B for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 04:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mojatatu-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGssHNY-tmHs for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2016 04:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD16912DDDE for <forces@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 04:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 90so35671518qgz.1 for <forces@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2016 04:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mojatatu-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sOxpiXzLdbM0EALfWR5zJ1ttB00y6mmH1CoTQ1Zc0lY=; b=yjb8dmPTitX6VYcHpuYzHogQIuxAFCeF03fQLUr/JN7HcI4JfAubAGxjovdVCdY2xP nBdKijtyBp9eNTHH+PNnI2b6TdE0NZffROEIIfV7CH0YyJFWNt+X04q3VyvRDFp1+LBH nc5IAqco7iyAuS+CJ6agk8kLjzohN2MLzxyOPwIzzTfcGlrz+fH8YpY/Z/sZCO7KxjXU zN3EBUDcpKdcq3xMzFkIq7xCXyE5ijBLVKmuMK55nALXzfk8AcaCk8u59+TYLQ79RTWK 4KCESYl5Ia1iHA2i4bQpoUFsXgnnesY+OWieq4eNnPjPzIIjnPDcyNnJWWaHxbLKYPTy O2RQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sOxpiXzLdbM0EALfWR5zJ1ttB00y6mmH1CoTQ1Zc0lY=; b=NRiaWYFHbZDNcmSkeezzsRCh3UoU62eWdaETz0njMvtUW11S/T8dxNwKqmk0ktb4jJ nGSVdia1BcjX091QHR6Y/sBTlXVhRDIQAXcAZBiFz8nuBGwDYNX8AjUgPFbpoIDJj5TB ripL7B3UkemAwfGKYLDdz/hGRuqfaswUICLn5Jl29FgX6umKEBkQ0lxNfrbooaX408kB /nYyUSqboEGdd7wY7BkEyiXO2gCJLLJ4K1x0/+snSnjAuWhmLbi/YdOzXBcH6VZyxWN0 tc7+4iZ7dA7WPfAI6hUiX37ml/BEHrVLrUd7/bjB/X/7hSL2ySmAEYGoYABa4CNlWj/1 8x4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKpgCb+pXuis86pZo8UDZboc7n2pNlbD0r1j47xXYQiWhVEL4hdXV/dhwLxIK4xIk3K4ygKi7DKIs/NZQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.166.3 with SMTP id m3mr8417600qhm.100.1464262172615; Thu, 26 May 2016 04:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.46.195 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2016 04:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <01b401d1b693$fb411810$f1c34830$@ndzh.com>
References: <01b401d1b693$fb411810$f1c34830$@ndzh.com>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 07:29:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD9uMeEmFDW44hFa9tyvAdtx2QbZmKJm7856yaVcc+7whg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11393f74a85bb20533bd1a18
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/forces/3Alkm_GxiW3yOgEKB02K92OIO80>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, zhang.xian@huawei.com, "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb@tools.ietf.org, Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, "forces@ietf.org" <forces@ietf.org>, Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [forces] [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR review of ForCES Inter-FE LFB (draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb-04.txt)
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/forces/>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:29:41 -0000

Hi Sue,

Appreciate the review. All your suggested changes will be reflected in
version 5 (which i hope we will get out by worst case the weekend).

cheers,
jamal

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> 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-forces-interfelfb-04.txt
>
> Reviewer: Susan Hares
>
> Date: 5/25/2016
>
> IETF End Date: unknown
>
> Intended Status: Standards track
>
>
>
> Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits
> that should be considered before publication.
>
>
>
> Comments:
>
> ·         Document contains good technical content for extending the
> Forces work into an Inter-FE LFB.   The document is easily read, but a few
> nits would improve its readability.
>
> ·         My hand check of the inter-FE LFB XML model indicated all XML
> is fine.  If an automated check of the XML with the Forces LFBs, it would
> be useful to run this check.
>
> ·         The improvement in the congestion consideration section (5.1.3)
> between -03 and -04 was necessary.
>
>
>
> Major issues: none
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Page 9  figure 5. – the between figure lines is not aligned.
>
> This line begins with the “Ethernet Frame with:”
>
>
>
> Page 12 –
>
> Old
>
> /(XXX: note to editor/
>
> New /(XXX: note to RFC editor/
>
>
>
> Page 15
>
> Old /original payload i.e. skips the IFE header information./
>
> New /original payload (i.e. skips the IFE header information)/
>
>
>
> Page 21
>
>
>
> Old
>
> /This memo includes one IANA requests within the registry
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/
>
>
>
> New
>
> /This memo includes one IANA request within the registry
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces. /
>
>
>
> p. 22
>
> Old /As such, it has no impact on their security considerations./
>
> New/ As such, it has no impact on these documents security considerations./
>
>
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
>