Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Fri, 21 December 2018 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@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 C1B48124BF6; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:13:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 f23SAi6RCP0c; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x136.google.com (mail-it1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 980A8124B0C; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x136.google.com with SMTP id m8so15928055itk.0; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:13:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iVHRB4KP9LzXnr3ZAfMtsF7ufePS1KGBZnkuGtvlsdI=; b=qc25x/ZF+KU1zJ7STeyBKkP+46jKmCdLowspxiZBf7+uoODxVZkKCxqEUO56fIZ+dQ Uyptsttd9OuIOcUhfgD/yjq2irtakcCfUGoz62f739ki+PWMyTVAozvty5lCsAaxI6Op PIkxS8OBIZXDCw9108LH85PADbBzIbtFicifguAr6ohfF/Y6z9+VooYIn+rxL4VpMolg DEKvNhVDTqPTAqbL4OLl/Mdo/ZQYK8p10f07nENNruOE6CGt9zq5rmvHryBiPpwDQuyO xjvf6vICCigdYGWjSvPvBq1GvXO6NxGEBcNB2KfptxIbOJom4Cs7qwDN1uirLSvyDugi R4wQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iVHRB4KP9LzXnr3ZAfMtsF7ufePS1KGBZnkuGtvlsdI=; b=iF6zXN2bLqaGYoJwI0lKym+j6B5lZxrub+F0enzmiX29q/UP1ybakQQt+K70PRA0VU 5cDcJPykrRLhdql3oI6TqSfUbx0rKhx+V6GLJD6ND2uAH1zOLboTiJKIXNlfxm2yUB7m ScOYfpLahzO5BYPWXaPNww8kol50nFfg+mX7dTAv2CNDIzbG0hxBd5kfcuCurmCaB8jm sdLZb0+kL9P18TbjPrjW2Kp9pele32sP+y+xiVM7cz8tt/FWyB27KA8ld4yWfNWMLSwX UEfZaTXPx6teU9pRaoajK99JORCSeBFWZc5BpdOhV8Hi/WCpuxuJp8gbLUVTCkWUHmBO S/sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaBPbnk6Rng5p8IG4drc2I8FytxdzKlKYQdOVa+w/gghJnvryRI gZBJ+DvR5y6Hz3I/uQlS5Hslczwvj83s0l8FXqc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VpKpsAr5+5dfmFXijV8mr99mVHl4sI4+plxl3Z+T0UdCQxCaPvgrF0fczr7Ofhv39KZFxXqOvH6+WEKBdUh7A=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:98d2:: with SMTP id c18mr1654244jak.11.1545405215772; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:13:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154453856127.13107.13446099188672332015@ietfa.amsl.com> <9284_1545400013_5C1CEECD_9284_27_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B787B8F@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <9284_1545400013_5C1CEECD_9284_27_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B787B8F@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:13:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFgnS4UX2z0G86by6k_jHVdCgDOSjyLGho49DX4dwb==gNJMpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb979b057d89b03b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/P0vyhz9OFLAd5EI4OsNKR9SK4jU>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
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: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:13:39 -0000

Hi Stephane,

Draft 09 addresses my (minor) concerns. Thank you for the prompt response
end for the edits.

Regards,

Dan


On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:46 PM <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>; wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The -09 has been published and should address your comment.
>
> Feel free to raise any additional concern.
>
> Brgds,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:dromasca@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 15:29
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> rtgwg@ietf.org; dromasca@gmail.com
> Subject: Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2018-12-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> Ready
>
> This document analyzes the impact of using non-standardized IGP Link State
> implementations resulting in non-consistent tuning of parameters in the
> network
> and increased possibility of creating micro-loops. It can be viewed as a
> problem statement for standardized solutions like RFC 8405.
>
> The document is short and clear for implementers and operators familiar
> with
> networks running this class of protocols. Diagrams and table help in
> reading
> and understanding the material.
>
> Major issues:
>
> none
>
> Minor issues:
>
> none
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> 1. In the introduction:
>
> > For non standardized timers, implementations are free to implement it
>    in any way.
>
> It is not obvious what 'it' means. I guess it's about different values of
> timers resulting in the possibility of micro-loops creation, but it would
> be
> better to clarify.
>
> 2. It would be useful to provide short explanations that make the figures
> more
> clear. In fig. 1 - what do the nodes represent (routers implementing the
> protocols), in fig. 2, and 3 - the abbreviations on the y axis
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>