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 > |
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Meral Shirazipour
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Meral Shirazipour
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Hitoshi Asaeda