Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 03 December 2019 17:54 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 3CDFE120220; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:54:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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=Qxlnqn0u; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=DS12WYFo
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 VbRuQryQW0Qh; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E339612029C; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:54:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25385D75; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:54:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:54:45 -0500
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=fm1; bh=A h5TEtb0M2mrCMB8dU40OeIxIU+UBL8oEeuyHj9IN+E=; b=Qxlnqn0uRn/yOM5Ya ZF2t6zE+L5I3oTvkYI5oTR9kCoT3ATIlk/Bj3Nr1JTILXb9k0DvHbP3rlR6b+XJQ ZY8kZY010l2nY4vT4XWCD64hfnltrP2LMl6myq51aCo9Kxbw+TQAt0swvN77625U XGTt6/4+PkO6xAHlMyvqLlf1RvV6T+p8iTJZ8JAp7urBKCm9K6C4gAw6ammNWlw2 2Gmoee4dIzo8qmimNGbasM5UvHFzHKzE4yVZvD8na0apD3t9aD57anqwQV5f7Piy u3vlb3U3/8Zb1HxJGd/QkmZpAkq3xd38uStUMf41ctj5WcQqV2MEyCa+Smcy6ljU WrBLA==
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=fm1; bh=Ah5TEtb0M2mrCMB8dU40OeIxIU+UBL8oEeuyHj9IN +E=; b=DS12WYFoYX/XnxyppINNdXh7RUAuNbc12MBmFTo4UTP5gx/DwUVX4wl2Q TbOTo+iax31rca3eD+pfPxuvlxdLK5hqsh1ASZ+zFn/w/eTR5dLNg8Y8IO/Yt79D PvUPkPUmi1WMffpsWMs9sXBo00C8eNTpodAIYvaX3vsrYzg0/n6KDLQP4m3+ykLW n7DS7WDZnYQirPB1QDzWiqcIo9Ug9HE3IwN/lX3Au+v5ImNhRV5g5hjqmdaPs/dG pzkAacM3S/HMNLGpz8hj7hK8hBPV4xQX0UuK2zUJC7ysabhX4aVDv9f+dkajUfKo eigppDg334K4cBbEqm2nWUxoF3qWg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ZKHmXWWNYWL7SrExVeLS1-S3-WjO8eB7KMK1Z5mMGIqvVL4_0eVJfQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudejjedguddtiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhi shhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomh grihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepuddtkedrhedurddutddurdelkeenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ZKHmXWTlcxVBgDrhV6puTFG5lP-XyHaCLgY19mVRJsz-_GhFkxpebQ> <xmx:ZKHmXTDRFzo1eZ78rs2uU05_wuclFuDN1Fpv7DUtbh6qclKz4F3g9w> <xmx:ZKHmXet41cpaQkQlWSP7602O-yjSa5Y8pYvDIkOyHd7ddMbT5MkCVw> <xmx:ZKHmXT_aWrmYkjddm3kHV9LPYL82QBk2EeFp4I9SN7W54K6igNn6zg>
Received: from alcoop-m-c46z.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-101-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.101.98]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1B3D530600BD; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:54:44 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <157299833014.4489.16930645929428051064@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:54:42 -0500
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-drlb.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0424D2FC-F0A8-411D-91DC-366705B15A08@cooperw.in>
References: <157299833014.4489.16930645929428051064@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/8qZyufSfwtYtc_tlYxoX8lswFBI>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13
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, 03 Dec 2019 17:54:48 -0000

Pete, thanks for your review. I think the uses of normative language and the nits you identified are ok as-is, but would encourage the authors to take a look.

Alissa

> On Nov 5, 2019, at 6:58 PM, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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-pim-drlb-13
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2019-11-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-07
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready with some minor issues and nits, plus one "interesting note".
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> In 5.1, the SHOULDs regarding the default hash masks seem a bit odd: Usually
> SHOULD means that bad things are likely to happen if you choose otherwise, but
> if you know what you are doing, you might choose something different. Is there
> any real harm to choosing some other hash masks, or are you simply saying that
> these are perfectly reasonable? Not a big deal one way or the other, but if
> there is harm, you should probably say something about that.
> 
> In 5.1: "The hash value computed will be the ordinal number of the GDR
> Candidate that is acting as GDR." I'm not sure what that sentence means, but
> then again, this entire document is way outside my area of expertise, so
> perhaps this is obvious.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> The IDNITS tool reports:
> 
>  == There are 4 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
>     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
> 
>  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
>     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
> 
> Are those the addresses in 5.2.1? Are they kosher?
> 
> In 5.3.2, why is it "RECOMMENDED that the addresses are sorted in descending
> order."? Is that what's mentioned in 5.4? If so, perhaps a forward reference
> would be helpful.
> 
> Finally, my "interesting note":
> 
> I see in the shepherd report:
> 
> ----
> 
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
> 
> Yes, there is IPR and it has been declared with #1713.
> 
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
> 
> Yes, IPR has been declared and the WG has been notified.
> 
> ----
> 
> That seems to indicate that nobody had any comment about the IPR declaration.
> But I also see noted in the shepherd report, "Cisco has an implementation of
> this protocol. No other vendors have indicated plan to implement the
> specification". That leads to a pretty obvious question: Are other vendors not
> implementing this because of the IPR (which you'd think would be a concern), or
> are other vendors planning on implementing this in the future, or is this just
> a Cisco-private extension that requires no interoperability? It seems curious
> that there was no discussion at all.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art