Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-10.txt

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francis,

Sorry, my verison numbers are all off by 1 :-(

The currently posted version is -11. I expect a -12 to be posted very soon.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Francis,
>
> I believe your comments are resolved in the -10 version of this draft. I
> expect a -11 version to be posted soon with a few other minor improvements.
> So, you might want to check the current -10 version or the -11 version when
> it is posted.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] <(508)%20333-2270> (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Francis Dupont <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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-trill-centralized-replication-10.txt
>> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
>> Review Date: 20171209
>> IETF LC End Date: 20171212
>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>>
>> Summary: Ready with Issues
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues: C-nickname is used before being defined
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>  - Abstract page 1: please expand the RPF abbrev
>>
>>  - Abstract page 1 and 1 page 3: Mutlicast -> Multicast
>>
>>  - ToC page 2 and 3 title page 5:
>>   Centralized Replication Solution Overview -> Centralized replication
>>   solution overview
>>   (mainly for consistency)
>>
>>  - ToC page 2 and 6 title page 8: a edge group -> an edge group
>>   (It seems both are accepted?)
>>
>>  - ToC page 2 and 9 title page 12: I have a little concern with the
>>   CMT abbrev which BTW is not in the RFC Editor list
>>   (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt)
>>   I suggest to add "(RFC 7783)" after CMT
>>
>>  - ToC page 3 and 10 title page 13:
>>   Network Upgrade Analysis -> Network upgrade analysis
>>   (still consistency)
>>
>>  - 1 page 3: at the first read it was not obvious that RBv is just the
>>   notation for a virtual RBridge. I suggest to do the same than for RBn,
>>   i.e., to change the first occurrence from RBv to (RBv).
>>
>>  - 1 page 3: my US English spell checker does not accept learnt
>>   (it wants learned ???)
>>
>>  - 2 page 4: please move from RFC 2119 to its update RFC 8174
>>
>>  - 2 page 4: LAALP -Local -> LAALP - Local
>>
>>  - 3 page 5 title: cf ToC comment
>>
>>  - 3 page 5: " BUM packet should be..." an example of a lower case
>>   "should" which can take benefit of RFC 8174 (vs RFC 2119). Note
>>   there are two other "should"s next page and a "may" in 4 (and other
>>   lower case keywords).
>>
>>  - 3 page 6: C-nickname is used without explanation of what it is
>>   (the explanation is in 9 page 12 so far later). Some words and/or
>>   a forward reference should solve the issue.
>>
>>  - 8 page 11 (last line): nodes/ multiple -> nodes / multiple
>>
>>  - 9 page 12 title: cf ToC comment
>>
>>  - 9 page 12: CMT -> Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT)
>>   (at the first occurrence, i.e., first line after figure 2)
>>
>>  - 9 page 12: the definition of C-nickname is here.
>>   BTW you use both C-flag and C-nickname flag, the second is not
>>   very correct from a language point of view but is very clear
>>   technically so I shan't object if you keep it.
>>
>>  - 10 page 13 title: cf ToC comment
>>
>>  - 11 page 13: psudo -> pseudo
>>
>>  - Authors' Addresses page 17 (two occurrences): China -> PR China
>>   (or you can switch all countries to ISO IS 3166 two letter codes)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> [e-mail]
>>
>
>