Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-08.txt
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mon, 12 August 2013 17:10 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 D44B621F84F9 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 QPeYl7ho2oA4 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D2E21E80F7 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A36E2CC51; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:53:47 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJMxUYBQrkDA; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:53:46 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8066A2CC48; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:53:46 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <201306030940.r539eEsH093352@givry.fdupont.fr>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:53:46 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3DAF9B22-1BC5-4323-8E69-9D2FF8B16369@piuha.net>
References: <201306030940.r539eEsH093352@givry.fdupont.fr>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-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: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:10:40 -0000
Francis: thank you for your detailed review! Based on this review I have decided to ballot a No-Objection position. Authors: However, there are some editorial issues that Francis raises here, and I can not find an e-mail where you would respond to them? Has there been a response and/or have the comments been taken into account in a newer version? I tried to look at the diffs, but there are quite many changes, so I wanted to check that you have seen these and acted on those that you believe need to be acted upon. Jari On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> 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>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-08.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20130527 > IETF LC End Date: 20130527 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > (Note most of them should be handled by the RFC Editor) > > - "Requirement Language" section page 1 is not in the body > > - the requirement keywords are not used everywhere in the document, > if I understand well there is a normative part. BTW the question > stands too about the Security Considerations. > > - ToC page 2 and 8 page 31: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - I have some problems with the abbrevs, I suggest: > * refer to the RFC Editor list to know if an abbrev is well known or not, > in the second case consider to introduce it > * IMHO all not well known abbrev required to understand the text or used > more than once must be introduced at the first use > * another way is to refer to a terminology RFC > > - 2 pages 4 and 5: figure 1 should be on one page (BTW this is a good > example of something which could be handled by the RFC Editor) > > - same figure problems for figures 2 > > - 2.1 page 8: examples of the abbrev issue with ECMP, LAG and FEC. > > - 4.1 page 19: i.e. -> i.e., > > - 4.3.2 page 23: [RFC5036] (section A.1.1, page# 100) -> > ([RFC5036] section A.1.1, page 100) ?? > > - 4.4 page 23 and 5 page 25: the title should not be at the last line > > - 4.4 page 24, 7 page 28 and 7.1.2 page 29: e.g. -> e.g., > > - 5 is a normative part so uses KEYWORDS (IMHO this should be explained, > for instance in the Requirement Language section if it is moved to > a more standard position) > > - 5 page 26: the Queue Request Type is TBD but is 0x0971 in the schema? > > - 6.1 page 27: I suggest to add a reference for RFC5036 > (i.e., RFC5036 -> [RFC5036] as it is in other positions) > > - 7: I have no problem at all (:-) with using KEYWORDS in Security > Considerations! > > - 7 page 28: are considered as -> are applied as ? > > - 7.2 page 30 (about keywords): for instance 'should NOT' -> > 'SHOULD NOT' and keep the MAY in 5. > > - 7.3 page 30: a more questionable 'may' > > - 7.4 page 31: two should's which should be IMHO 'SHOULD' > > - Authors' Addresses page 32: another paging (?) issue > > - Authors' Addresses page 33: some issues: > * French ZIP codes are in front (but is it possible to change from > the XML? I don't know so if you find a simple way to fix it please > both fix it and explain it to me) > * ITU TS E.123 requires no optional part in the middle of a phone > number, i.e., 1-(978)-589-8861 -> +1-978-589-8861 > * no ZIP code for London? BTW grep finds 'FELTHAM TW14 8HA' > (Cisco's communication department should know the canonical > address. BTW in my company we had to agree about the canonical > company name... :-) > > Regards > > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-08.txt Francis Dupont
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-0… Jari Arkko