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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 17 December 2018 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16924130EE9; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=fokasIB7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=BuiHibJN
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 PJpiCh34Q6qp; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52091130EE6; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0779D1245; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:39:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:40:00 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=fm1; bh=TMNYk1CqBC3UwMWGsoaEYHS LJZykk6v96fXHpUwjBvc=; b=fokasIB74NRWaQ+6yFMO9rSYAibRDGOemDSBkt2 5W9o0x71IYeUn7UOow18FZvkfjoAp9DSBTJi9FiCR+FWtbsituoEWTdHqMrQjrwN XHLbsvdAGIt9y9jYXW58tPQ4lq2gmDOVLMInCaQcwas9LRmKim1dkMNngczPuicc dPTJlrBE26NTuFRRbZ80p3lL5jtsbV4mDPnjYshAUF2ADC7U3QHY6FMGnOyVwmqj gTrbzqSxDrafjpR5GEeHPAZfz/l6p9oO8B2mEoELA9J01VxAYKjs4UFmysEmX1Kt sVTQ+nRtygrC/xLawmPr2/ZThxz7AIYX0uJ9GU9kcoIw0wA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=TMNYk1 CqBC3UwMWGsoaEYHSLJZykk6v96fXHpUwjBvc=; b=BuiHibJNhfVzd7DIvAjGBP 07ZbAccPfLzKCgxt1OfwX7pKgKUW8O4kXNjwolUsPUZs/cEoWLn+Nx2hWLrsoRgz yBFT3je6dBZtbDpb90UyzZ9jNl/dz5PUfrfkm3fnC5jQyIZXmKj0fjNqpqg9Yjl9 RwE+VWr2vMAVmNUHn1lPofD7hRbI/00uB/2goZTzsQ2kQcUtnrfwLn5g0ikBHMb+ 9wTZ867qSTyjrv/X4cr9d6EId35bX1SA5/cqelcPy5DRNfgbOa+C0roS0HG+mRP/ 1fnDUqMzXPcu2CGBB5ccYmBTrMeIqaqTlqZmRwdU0GH6y8tzCfAy7OdJ8M7meL5g ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:b98XXLMh1B3x6UrEWU3oPJAlrQnTCLUdOFKOB5wbyQeLh85Q1MEjBA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtkedrudeifedgudefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfquhhtnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucef tddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhkfgtggfuff gjvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheptehlihhsshgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegr lhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgne cukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedrleefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegr lhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:b98XXOlu64ubjje2jS1_GE8Pzv7ENaQKcyI2IsZfmO6-yC92pj3NIQ> <xmx:b98XXBtilFwwGEt73SkHPprB_HFjiYT3DvcBuUC-ukLZVXxYULLoFQ> <xmx:b98XXJoiAWa7reRWl9sGpKNj8PlXhtKJr1aZn_7Cu0UV-Ct_B5QijQ> <xmx:b98XXGQrE0WDbgUBkGV3Xf9kCvvWxdX3vp1L1Qy7zPm19UNT5vMQUg>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.93]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9BF78E4666; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:39:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-Id: <078B4563-F7F7-46D7-94CE-D0BD62EF3581@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CEF63431-8443-435E-9469-67A13A9E7ABC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:39:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxotVWRFcTtHPBmdM2ktRBmm_QxJYx=Ur1JNf-b5WR9AqA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, idr@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org
To: ek@loon.co
References: <154468622674.21337.6779624997213312596@ietfa.amsl.com> <c55fbf14f6ec43f5a788cb2c90c4684a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <CAAedzxotVWRFcTtHPBmdM2ktRBmm_QxJYx=Ur1JNf-b5WR9AqA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-c9EyhR7M5WXibkTU4TyBxE0C_A>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 17:40:04 -0000

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