Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 25 August 2020 16:43 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 CE0983A0F6F; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=EDXcx0Qj; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=bR2a+wwV
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 l2MyWNb56s1z; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21B203A0F73; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AC5A9E; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:43:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:43:31 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=s zxCK6kvJfJJT17jCbFU5/JOf8Njjiv8LRfz+zy9sec=; b=EDXcx0Qj5X+jlBS/f KT5z+TqdIKwBvzl3hkc8RcJ7OtiNjDBd+GalUZ4bRWMW+wF5iHp02TrR26BFgdT8 qI/mk0OCsxio4N+aVEE/q4iuLGBRTMixXDpmGFxOLGihjL58+vbSQYE24OKLksti rgmvwi6kybkXs/dlhHIrkxaJLRDuaYExF3S6w2yyjMwMBxFZL+hT3KOivBCsirQF aBE8pnu3CazQKyTrplWZ8pKAUHAQp5RIZgt62JBRL4HitIwtpqT7JtcxKUYdhg07 CA5JSFInmY67RtfCjM8cIB4AbEmzS/i8tpivMBgtyZQ1UMTDPOZsngkoLR3M6vun GVWkg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=fm3; bh=szxCK6kvJfJJT17jCbFU5/JOf8Njjiv8LRfz+zy9s ec=; b=bR2a+wwVXQ5B36j82cV1iGY9utDCinKpzbF3rJjcZeuLhYYAkIBDrLtt0 ZFIGVp2m3kS1djWRRZSGATmIWUqjYga5efUjIkNo3WJHzDEj2nkvRvvPhXJ2tdDq q2Xxa8HAsWNxiwzRffxH/UO97xFFxf/Z7MIZXXZbYAoQM7T9OIOASzEz7k76sd1j rbVIImPycM36e+eO0OQigZHnms5O6wyLGJ49hgJEu52CD9KlGgaaRPcQLm0xUP8V NVSMjlK41/UdK1F8jDGZ8z3MrspSZl3g3cx+Sq4wHOsMVysd7rJ71TpzB+0mTohv whUZF+dvuUXAuZRY4NCgKw96R4KDA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:sj9FXwoJbk1YF47sr-CeMAU1WlWksKvq6ADyOO-fgNwn7kOy7AKRJg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddvtddguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesth hqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlihhsshgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrges tghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefudfhgfetgfetvddvffeiud dtkeffgedvjeejtdeiheefgfelfeeutdelvdfggfenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdho rhhgnecukfhppedujeefrdefkedruddujedrjeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:sj9FX2rxJh1pm99txoQrjBWb2jumTw_xa7HDC0TF0OogDjO_Ynq9QQ> <xmx:sj9FX1Nekte2EWri0zP7uKJVjxCITYTBgY-rbPfbUa9tQByfGyyA-Q> <xmx:sj9FX34neH2GWkDbheR999UM4Fol48CnZAZ9r1o3dgJ77I6aGelgkw> <xmx:sj9FX_G3X6MayZnuT_bqVqHGuRqr2Km9vZGAPHkmYchyigxuqTcpng>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CD1223280063; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:43:28 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB70126306D2DBF0E5B74FE13093610@AM7PR07MB7012.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:43:26 -0400
Cc: "slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AC814775-A0C7-49CA-9033-4670A971CDE8@cooperw.in>
References: <159433301602.19413.16120234350291165406@ietfa.amsl.com> <001801d656c1$fc848b30$f58da190$@gmail.com> <AM7PR07MB70126306D2DBF0E5B74FE13093610@AM7PR07MB7012.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1kv8Sh2V9-b2mUJ8ug-0OypqvbI>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
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: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:43:34 -0000

Christer, thanks for your review. Stephane, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Ben has flagged the IANA considerations issue in his ballot.

Alissa

> On Jul 14, 2020, at 8:50 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephane,
> 
>> Thanks for your comments.
>> For your information, this document is just a revision of RFC5549, so 99,9% of the text is just copy/paste from the existing RFC.
>> Of course, we can improve things.
>> 
>> I'll take care of your comments for a next revision.
>> For the IANA section, as IANA will not have any action, I would prefer keeping the existing text from RFC5549. We can also let other people comment on that point.
> 
> In that case, shouldn't you at least update the reference (from RFC5549 to this document) in the IANA registry? 
> 
> But, as the document obsoletes RFC5549, I would personally include the complete registration text in this document - even if it is just copy/paste from RFC5549.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
> Sent: vendredi 10 juillet 2020 00:17
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> 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>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2020-07-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I only have a couple of editorial nits.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues: N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where the "This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second paragraph.
> 
> Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying "This document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be explicit about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract.
> 
> Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol"
> terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address"
> terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether the terminology can be more consistent.
> 
> Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) are indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, please indicate the IANA registry name.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art