Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vijay,

The recent update below includes changes to address your comments.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-10

Thanks,
Ketan


On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:00 AM Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear Ketan: Sounds good.  Thank you for your time attending to my comments.
>
> - vijay
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:26 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Vijay,
>>
>> Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
>>
>> The changes discussed below would reflect in the next update of the
>> document.
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 1:20 AM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
>>> 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>.
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-??
>>> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
>>> Review Date: 2022-08-12
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-17
>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>>
>>> Summary: Draft is ready with nits for a Proposed Standard.
>>>
>>> Major issues: 0
>>>
>>> Minor issues: 1 (please see below)
>>>
>>> Nits/editorial comments: 4 (please see below)
>>>
>>> Minor:
>>> - Sec. 3.6: Note that Type is "TBD" here.  Should this be 1046, as shown
>>> in
>>>  Table 1?  (Or is the use of 1046 still under discussion?)
>>>
>>
>> KT> This allocation is currently under "Expert Review" - at this point,
>> it is a suggested code point. This will hopefully be completed soon and we
>> will update the document once done.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nits:
>>> - I note that certain acronyms --- IGP, NLRI, ASLA --- are not defined.
>>> I
>>> suspect that these are well-known in the community, hence need no
>>> definition.
>>> Just in case they are not, you may consider expanding the rare ones on
>>> first
>>> use.
>>
>>
>> KT> Ack. Fixed some of these acronyms that are not well-known on their
>> first use.
>>
>>
>>> - Sec. 1: s/Flexible algorithm is called so as/Flexible algorithm is so
>>> called because/
>>
>>
>> KT> Fixed
>>
>>
>>> - Sec. 2: s/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node
>>> is/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node is (are)/
>>>   Reason: symmetry in the sentence construction
>>>
>>
>> KT> Fixed
>>
>>
>>> - Sec. 3.6: Is Figure 7 missing the trailing "//" for sub-TLV tpes?
>>>
>>
>> KT> Fixed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>