Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

New revision just out fixes the issues.

Thanks again.
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>
To: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>; "General Area Review Team" 
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of 
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07


> For the record, this email along with Adrian's address all of my 
> comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:19 AM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
>
>> Adrian:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:07 PM
>>> To: Ben Campbell; PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri; General Area Review Team
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-07
>>>
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>
>>> Dimitri, need your help!
>>> See in line below.
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>
>>>> -- Section 9.1:
>>>>
>>>> This section shows the sub-TLV types as TBD, but at least
>>> some of the
>>>> references sections specify type numbers.
>>>
>>> OK, I found section 9.1
>>> |   Value        Sub-TLV
>>> Reference
>>> |   -----------  --------------------------------------------
>>> ----------
>>> |   TBD          Local TE Router ID
>>> [This.ID]
>>>
>>> But, in section 5.3
>>> | The Type of the Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV is 5
>>>
>>> Similarly,
>>> |   TBD          Local and Remote TE Router ID
>>> [This.ID]
>>>
>>> But, section 5.2
>>> |    The Type of the Local and Remote TE Router-ID sub-TLV is 17
>>>
>>> Also,
>>> |   TBD          Node IPv4 Local Prefix
>>> [This.ID]
>>> |   TBD          Node IPv6 Local Prefix
>>> [This.ID]
>>>
>>> But in section 3
>>> |  - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable
>>> |  - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable
>>>
>>> Dimitri, are these values:
>>> - required
>>> - desired
>>> - suggested?
>>
>> The former.
>>
>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>>
>>>> -- general:
>>>>
>>>> It would be helpful to have referenceable numbers for the
>>> TLV format
>>>> figures.
>>>
>>> Yeah, might be nice, but since the figures are not referenced
>>> outside the
>>> section in which they appear, I think we won't bother this time.
>>
>> usually we ref. the sub-section itself.
>>
>>>> Using non-mnemonic citations as if they were nouns in a
>>> sentence  creates
>>>> extra work for the reader, who must flip back to the  references to
>>>> understand the sentence.  That is, the form  "...defined
>>> in [xxx]".  It's
>>>> better to say "defined in foo [xxx]". It's not as bad  with
>>> mnemonic
>>>> citations (e.g. "defined in [foo]"), but it can still
>>> cause confusion if
>>>> text is quoted in other documents without the  associated reference
>>>> section.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.
>>> This notation seems to be used pretty widely.
>>> I'd hate to see text that said "..defined in RFC 1234 [RFC1234]." :-)
>>
>> it is correct but as most IETF refs. are RFCs it reads often like  Adrian
>> states.
>>
>>>> -- section 2, 2nd paragraph: "The
>>>>   limit of the subdivision results is an RA that contains just two
>>>>   sub-networks interconnected by a single link."
>>>>
>>>> I don't follow the last sentence. Is it possible "results
>>> is" was  meant
>>>> to be "results in"?
>>>
>>> Yes. Thanks.
>>>
>>>> -- section 3.1, last paragraph, first sentence: "The local
>>> addresses  that
>>>> can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs."
>>>>
>>>> incomplete sentence. Is "that" spurious?
>>>
>>> Good catch.
>>> OLD
>>>   The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE
>>> LSAs. That is,
>>>   router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD NOT be advertised
>>>   in the node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV.
>>> NEW
>>>   The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE
>>> LSAs (that is,
>>>   the router address and TE interface addresses) SHOULD NOT be
>>>   advertised in the node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV.
>>>
>>>> section 3.2, first paragraph after the figure: "Length is
>>> set to Sum[n] [4
>>>> + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
>>>>       number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV."
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the expression.
>>>
>>> But you think you might? :-)
>>>
>>> Hard doing scientific notation in ASCII, isn't it?
>>> OLD
>>>     Length is set to Sum[n][4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
>>>       number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV. The
>>> encoding of
>>>       each prefix potentially using fewer than four 32-bit words is
>>>       described below.
>>> NEW
>>>     Length is set to the sum over all of the local prefixes
>>> included in
>>>       the sub-TLV of (4 + (number of 32-bit words in the prefix)/4 ).
>>>       The encoding of each prefix potentially using fewer than four
>>>       32-bit words is described below.
>>
>> correct.
>>
>>>> -- section 4.1, 3rd paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> Please expand LSC and PSC on first use.
>>>
>>> oke
>>>
>>>> -- section 6, 3rd paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> s/informtation/information
>>>
>>> oke
>>>
>>>> -- idnits reports the following:
>>>
>>> Who can keep up with the IPR change rate?
>>> All IPR notices correct at time of submission.
>>> No doubt they will be updated and correct many times in the
>>> next weeks.
>>
>> is there something specific here to be done from my side ?
>>
>> much thanks,
>> -dimitri.
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>
>