[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05
Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Thu, 03 September 2009 21:28 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@estacado.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406C73A68A3; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mEkHq7z4CHfE; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCF63A6834; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.193] (adsl-68-94-37-79.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [68.94.37.79]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n83LSmAx031643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:28:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:28:43 -0500
Message-Id: <A0BFDD8C-1D13-44E7-A107-F92977401B63@estacado.net>
To: mshand@cisco.com, stbryant@cisco.com, jgs@juniper.net, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1075.2)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1075.2)
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:28:42 -0000
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2009-09-03 IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-04 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This document is mostly ready for publication as an informational RFC. There are a few nits and editorial issues that would be helpful to address first. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- Section 1, general: It would be helpful to have a paragraph describing the purpose of this document. Is it just to educate? Draw a conclusion? Help some audience make a decision? -- Paragraph 1: Please expand LDP on first use. -- Paragraph 3: Can you define "micro-loop"? (or contrast it with "loop") Please expand "TE" on first use. -- section 2, paragraph 1: "Cyclic loops may occur..." Are there non-cyclic loops? -- 2nd to last paragraph: "congestion loss" Did you mean "congestion" or "packet loss"? -- section 3, last paragraph: Please expand IGP on first use. -- section 4, 8th paragraph: "packet monitoring method, which detects that a packet is looping and drops it" s/", which"/"that" -- section 5.1: It's a bit odd to have a single subsection all by itself. -- section 5.1, second to last paragraph: Is there a reference for the simulations? Also, I would avoid all caps in "REDUCES" as all-caps is typically used for normative assertions. -- last paragraph: Can you describe more what you mean by "good-news" and "bad-news" events? I can guess, but it's better to be explicit. -- 6.1, first paragraph: s/"can be proved"/"can be proven" Also, is there a reference for such a proof? -- 6.3, 2nd paragraph: Confusing line break. Is it the "not-via" mechanism, or is a typo? Maybe quotes around "not-via" would help (or a space before the reference to move the line break.) 10, 4th paragraph: s/"…methods distributed…"/"…methods, distributed..." -- idnits reports the following: Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer? (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-03
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-l… Ben Campbell
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-r… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ie… mike shand
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ie… Ben Campbell