Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-21

Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@nict.go.jp> Wed, 29 November 2017 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <asaeda@nict.go.jp>
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 113ED127B5A; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:49:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 suGY5nsujcBK; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:232:300::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE498120724; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id vAT0n28v052938; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:49:02 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.14]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id vAT0n2sR052931; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:49:02 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (ssh1.nict.go.jp [133.243.3.49]) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail Spool Server1) with ESMTP id 3C8E2E736; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:49:02 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:49:05 +0900
Message-Id: <20171129.094905.1016776209357888047.asaeda@nict.go.jp>
To: lenny@juniper.net
Cc: mboned-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2.all@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, alias-bounces@ietf.org, kerry.meyer@me.com, weesan@weesan.com, gjshep@gmail.com, bclaise@cisco.com, warren@kumari.net
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1711280911500.29604@svl-jtac-lnx02.juniper.net>
References: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A4F6476D3@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <20171128.154743.1878164933228594600.asaeda@nict.go.jp> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1711280911500.29604@svl-jtac-lnx02.juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at zenith2
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0XJF6AzmBps9_uOWjpw8oczFxrY>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-21
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:49:10 -0000

Lenny,

Got it.
I discuss with Kerry about it and give you back.

Hitoshi

From: Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-21
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:13:53 -0800

> 
> Hitoshi- if you are planning on addressing the IANA comments soon with 
> further revisions, I would think it's probably better to wait and cover it 
> all in a single revised draft.
> 
> -Lenny
> 
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote:
> 
> | Greg and Lenny,
> | 
> | We addressed all comments given by the Gen-ART reviewer now.
> | Can I submit the revised draft (-22) to IETF now?
> | Or shall I do other procedures without (or before) submission?
> | 
> | (Note that the IANA comments are not addressed yet.)
> | 
> | Regards,
> | 
> | Hitoshi
> | 
> | From: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
> | Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-21
> | Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 04:57:12 +0000
> | 
> | > Hi,
> | >   Thank you for considering the comments.
> | > 
> | > Best,
> | > Meral
> | > 
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: Hitoshi Asaeda [mailto:asaeda@nict.go.jp] 
> | > Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 10:59 PM
> | > To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
> | > Cc: draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2.all@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; mboned-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> | > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-21
> | > 
> | > Dear Meral Shirazipour,
> | > 
> | > Thank you for your careful review.
> | > (And sorry for this late response.)
> | > 
> | > We've almost addressed your comments, and will submit the revision whenever we, co-authors, agree on the changes.
> | > 
> | > Please see inline.
> | > 
> | > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mboned-mtrace-v2-21
> | > Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 20:57:07 +0000
> | > 
> | >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=iw2TU3OZ0CDpCbqeV23zdah2FoG9Do-zEmGgWTaavDg&m=eJjk2UTDYpdj7vvCfAPp4bHKPBAxhOZKnWKci4orDg8&s=0Fd5MYO3Dy-fxmds4vux_mZgH5b4lhQa23yjPZQK288&e=>.
> | >> 
> | >> 
> | >> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09
> | >> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> | >> Review Date: 2017-11-16
> | >> IETF LC End Date:  2017-11-23
> | >> IESG Telechat date: NA
> | >> 
> | >> Summary:
> | >> This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have comments.
> | >> 
> | >> Major issues:
> | >> Minor issues:
> | >> Nits/editorial comments:
> | >> -please spell out acronyms at first use.
> | > 
> | > Thank you. Done.
> | > 
> | >> -[Page 7,8]
> | >> "If an implementation receives an
> | >>    unknown TLV type for the first TLV in a message, it SHOULD ignore and
> | >>    silently discard the TLV and any subsequent TLVs in the packet
> | >>    containing the TLV.  If an implementation receives an unknown TLV
> | >>    type for a subsequent TLV within a message, it SHOULD ignore and
> | >>    silently discard the TLV.  If the length of a TLV exceeds the
> | >>    available space in the containing packet, the implementation MUST
> | >>    ignore and silently discard the TLV and any remaining portion of 
> | >> the containing packet.  Any data in the packet after the specified TLV
> | >>    length is considered to be outside the boundary of the TLV and MUST
> | >>    be ignored during processing of the TLV.
> | >> "
> | >> 
> | >> this whole paragraph is a bit confusing.
> | >> 
> | >> e.g. "If an implementation receives an unknown TLV type for the first 
> | >> TLV in a message", is this refering to the header TLV?
> | > 
> | > Yes. It is referring to the header. This is clarified in the proposed re-wording as follows;
> | > 
> | > "If an implementation receives an unknown TLV type for the first TLV in a message (i.e., the header TLV), it SHOULD ignore and silently discard the entire packet."
> | > 
> | >> e.g. "If an implementation receives an unknown TLV type for a 
> | >> subsequent TLV within a message, it SHOULD ignore and silently discard 
> | >> the TLV.", does this mean TLVs after this one TLV should not be 
> | >> discarded?
> | > 
> | > For this statement, I'm asking to other co-authors to confirm the meaning, because I (Hitoshi) think this wording gives a wrong impression. We will clarify this statement in the revision ASAP.
> | > 
> | >> e.g. "Any data in the packet after the specified TLV length is 
> | >> considered to be outside the boundary of the TLV and MUST be ignored 
> | >> during processing of the TLV.", does this apply to last case only of 
> | >> when the length of a TLV exceeds the available space in the packet?
> | > 
> | > For that case (overflow bevond the packet boundary), there is no data after the last specified TLV length. This sentence is not needed and will be deleted.
> | > 
> | >> -[Page 12, 13], "UNIX timeval" or  timespec?
> | >> (please verify if usec or nsec)
> | > 
> | > We'll say;
> | > 
> | > "The following formula converts from a timespec (fractional part in
> | > nanoseconds) to a ..."
> | > 
> | >> -[Page 17], "An unique"--->"A unique"
> | > 
> | > Done. Thanks.
> | > 
> | > Best Regards,
> | > 
> | > Hitoshi
> | > 
> | > 
> | >> Best Regards,
> | >> Meral
> | >> ---
> | >> Meral Shirazipour
> | >> Ericsson
> | >> Research
> | >> www.ericsson.com
> |