[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Tue, 05 June 2012 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
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 3072E21F87B8 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d4NMSr9ta+3f for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7122021F86B0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so5169455ghb.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=RfCQSObULMks/Fp6kSlFPMn/VKIutdAmaAt6+3fq5xI=; b=IwS+qU/nMH2Ltvprq6E7Ha85g6it52EMAgOiVC1bETV/X4YEL/cQGgQKltne9s+4n6 Y0LCt2Vn4DLfQYrqjqcM0tYv9/f//Bx/lK8AmAxXECC/ORx8+3mooR259nxkcNEYmPd8 kEtbm3wzaFf7tjvB/IOj+fYyLYJEgnMs/awamsPn1xdp0U+wpVx2MT0VixRvvfEBdVFy UnjpW3dT3D+WuQNK2CYYw1Y01ceA8+Mpb8PX+hiP/cKVUhJDlZ4vQm3iX4Hw3DpLgPr8 OHJvhxkb+ZsfpqCX3A1+W44kt02OguNDpezfAswWd/4McxB4q0kh1iqyTC9Pn0UQPmqx NvWw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.104.228 with SMTP id gh4mr4052129igb.71.1338924482690; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.68.75 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B99ED789-C852-499E-9E0A-1848E3699BCB@cisco.com>
References: <CAHBDyN4kYQOG5=gp3J5QrVe+x1vrgU0EL_YziHtX80CqG+EWGQ@mail.gmail.com> <B99ED789-C852-499E-9E0A-1848E3699BCB@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:28:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN6=i=vNffUdf7o7aF5bD2gjVfb5C0NzVyz6KyUcPx8ThA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="e89a8f234cbf2bfc8004c1bea60b"
Subject: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:28:06 -0000

And, the response didn't make it either, of course.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Cc: "<draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm.all@tools.ietf.org>" <
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm.all@tools.ietf.org>


Mary,

Many thanks for the review! Much appreciated -- please see inline:

On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
Review Date:  4 June 2012
IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2012
IESG Telechat Date: 07 June 2012

Summary:  Ready with minor nits

Editorial nits:

1) Section 1:
-  2nd para, last sentence:
This sentence doesn't quite parse - it's not normative, so it should either
be deleted or reworded.  I suggest deleting as I think it's somewhat
superfluous.


Agreed E_PARSE. I recommend we do not delete because it introduces the
concept that this is for Basic Discovery. However, suggest:

   Therefore, GTSM can fully benefit LDP protocol peering session
   established using Basic Discovery.

to:

   Therefore, GTSM can protect an LDP protocol peering session
   established using Basic Discovery.

Thank you.

- Next to last paragraph - last three sentences - a little verbose &
somewhat redundant.  I think it can be summarized something like the
following:
OLD:
   This document specifies a "built-in dynamic GTSM
   capability negotiation" for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM.  GTSM
   will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an
   LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and
   agree to use it.  That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its
   negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default without any
   configuration.
NEW:
   This document specifies a dynamic GTSM
   capability negotiation mechanism for LDP. This mechanism allows
   both peers on an LDP session to indicate the support and use of GTSM
   without requiring any configuration.


This one I prefer to leave as-is, although appears as redundant in the
surface, it is agreed and crafted with some precision.


2) Section 2.2, 1st para, last sentence: "and RECOMMENDED" -> "and are
RECOMMENDED"


Done. Thanks again.

Adrian, I have these editorials in the working copy committed. I can submit
a new rev at your request.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.