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

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 15:29
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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.
>
>