Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 29 June 2022 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 6B19CC14F6E7; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4iTXuldwk338; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A03B2C14F5E1; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723A77EEBF; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [96.241.2.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BF437E9FC; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <f4fa115f0d3e4857aed207e2fbebafa1@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:33:01 -0400
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis.all@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6208EE34-544F-44B1-8406-AE80F2DF8B7A@vigilsec.com>
References: <165651143026.26585.5485702741745802901@ietfa.amsl.com> <f4fa115f0d3e4857aed207e2fbebafa1@huawei.com>
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/SOrD1oR6LjqKg5C_wYRiiIzphnw>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 20:33:04 -0000


> On Jun 29, 2022, at 11:57 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Russ,
> Thank you for your review.
> I will revise the draft to address your comments.
> Please see my reply inline tagged as [GF].
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:04 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis.all@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02
> 
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> 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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2022-06-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-21
> IESG Telechat date: 2022-07-14
> 
> 
> Summary: Ready with Nits
> 
> 
> Major Concerns: None
> 
> 
> Minor Concerns:
> 
> Section 8 says: "... can be incorporated into A, ..."
> I think that "A" is described in Figure 5, but it took me a few minutes to figure that out.  Please clarify.
> 
> [GF]: Sure, I will clarify that A is introduced in RFC8321bis and possibly refer to the Figure.
> 
> 
> Section 9 says:
> 
>   Either one or two flag bits might be available for marking in
>   different deployments:
> 
> This is followed by three labeled paragraphs.  Can this sentence be expanded to cover all three of the paragraphs that follow?
> 
> [GF]: Yes, I will highlight that three possibilities are possible.
> 
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Section 5.1: s/split our monitoring/split the monitoring/
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> Section 5.1: s/In our monitoring network/In the monitoring network/
> 
> [GF]: Ok

All of the above look fine.

> 
> Section 5.1 says:
> 
>   The algorithm described above network is an iterative clustering
>   algorithm, but it is also possible to apply a recursive clustering
>   algorithm by using the node-node adjacency matrix representation
>   [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM].
> 
> I cannot understand is sentence.
> 
> [GF]: [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM] describes different algorithms (iterative and recursive) for cluster partition. In this document we only describe the iterative approach since it executes steps in iterations. While the recursive algorithm is detailed in the paper. I will reword this paragraph to make it clearer.

This is a grammar concern.  "The algorithm described above network is ..." does not parse.

Russ