Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

Erik, thanks for your review. Les, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa 

> On Dec 13, 2018, at 5:12 PM, Erik Kline <ek@loon.co> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 00:26, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com <mailto:ginsberg@cisco.com>> wrote:
> Erik -
> 
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com <mailto:ek@google.com>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:30 PM
> > To: gen-art@ietf..org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
> > Cc: idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>; ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
> > 
> > Reviewer: Erik Kline
> > Review result: Ready with Nits
> > 
> > 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 treat these comments just
> > like any other last call comments.
> > 
> > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> > 
> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
> > 
> > Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-??
> > Reviewer: Erik Kline
> > Review Date: 2018-12-12
> > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> > 
> > Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the meanings
> > of
> > which are defined elsewhere.
> > 
> > Major issues:  [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a draft.
> >  I expect they'll get published together.
> > 
> [Les:] The reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis (rather than current RFC7810) was put in at the request of the AD. 
> You are correct that this introduces a dependency between this document and 7810bis and this document will remain in MISSREF state until 7810bis is published.
> As both drafts are in the review process we do not expect there to be a significant delay.
> 
> In any case this isn't a "major" issue is it? It seems worthwhile to have the reference be to the newer version of 7810 - and this certainly isn’t the only case where one document is dependent on another which has yet to be published.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a major issue for me; I marked the document as Ready with Nits.  I just felt like "major" was the section where this trivially obvious observation would belong.
>  
> > Minor issues: None.
> > 
> > Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some
> > readability
> > cleanup, perhaps.
> > 
> > [1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow scan
> > well
> > for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of
> > resources"?
> > 
> [Les:] "state and resource availability" is fine with me.
> 
> > [2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication
> > mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly.  "are assumed to
> > have
> > implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."?
> >
> [Les:] How about "assumed to support all the required..."
> ??
> 
> If you are OK with the suggestions I will publish an updated version very soon.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> Anything is fine. I think it just read ~funny~ to me, grammatically.  "assumed to meet all security and authentication requirements", sounds good. 
>  
> > I'm sure the editors will have better ideas.
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art