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

["PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
>