Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 20 February 2019 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 8CD3C12F19D; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:22:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kQUPWo4UI-lx; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A54C12870E; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1KGMdwn006497; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:22:39 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924782203A; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:22:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 869DF22044; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:22:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([114.247.104.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1KGMWYV019450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:22:35 GMT
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Robert Sparks'" <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>, <ietf@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip.all@ietf.org>
References: <155067766687.31388.18349714938448955572@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155067766687.31388.18349714938448955572@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:22:31 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <04c001d4c938$7e3d86e0$7ab894a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQF4uyAuQiUz1zT6JW7t9AabcMIgdqag+eEA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 114.247.104.200
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24444.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.875-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.875-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24444.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.875100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oHOSwQSJZWjxIbpQ8BhdbBMMmcrjEONd+IfriO3cV8SabNoYojBQdiGZ 6VVOVYeW7dnYL8JC+0XUmqAjrrnfrJIB4waj1+h9CmEn+y8Sa8b2kudi1D33EjyC5ddG2JcgMHF tu0lPAG76E2YHggZaQtcpv7GvOwuKFDf/GgM78iUXrP0cYcrA23OKOUMFh4P85DJ1FS+XdBP7XJ 5E3BcU3MyPK22RoB20JIVdEtqJTGx4+z8LHUMl3Z1U1lojafr/bv16+gil4jeX1RWcrwojHEj8A tVpDcmgwbJMFgUlJjevc0qsf6qV8Ucld4HSm4ijsyNb+yeIRAoTskidPjB12gDqzaYhcjeQAX0N cth4O8nnICRLH3OSnjU3TINr6s6sbLfoydCzQDMOrlBkQa9qFiNGSJ9zRuUNCVuEXtlNqcv1Xsi 2J/hIsxPyIdXWTILbw6cKPh/0DZG5F/6XhVIKVo3NgkEqAN0RfS0Ip2eEHnwa2S8rkvtFcbDszp 3K5gqDjoczmuoPCq3ZtQwo6oIY+se6fE3ZVPPhAYB8H/4m94QlsEBx8s1Oadlhg0pKM5dp
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/UbTrx-CGUoNgNWZDEYvIMZslT7E>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:22:45 -0000

That's a good review, Robert, thank you.

The changes look achievable to me, and I'm sure the author team can work to include them.

Cheers,
Adrian
--
Want to buy a signed copy of a book of fairy stories for adults of all ages?
Send me an email and I'll bring one to Prague for you.
"Tales from the Wood"
"More Tales from the Wood"
"Tales from Beyond the Wood"
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: 20 February 2019 15:48
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip.all@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
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-mpls-sr-over-ip-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-02-20
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready, but with nits that should be addressed before publication as a
Standards Track RFC

Nits

The 2nd sentence of the introduction is complex. It should be easy to simplify.

It would help to place the reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy label at
"If encoding of entropy is desired". (Or if some other reference is better, use
that)

In that same paragraph, something is wrong at "make use of entropy label
mechanism." Should that be "the entropy label mechanism"?

SRGB is used without expansion.

Where is "the lower bound" of an SRGB defined? The string "lower bound" doesn't
occur in either of the routing-extensions drafts referenced where SRGB is first
used.

Section 3.1 is about ostensibly about constructing a FIB entry, but its last
step is sending a packet.

The first sentence in section 3.2 is more complex than it needs to be. It
should be easy to simplify.

It would be nice if you could make the differences between the routers in
figures 3 and 4 visually apparent rather than relying on text to explain the
difference. Something like (view in a fixed width font):

s-----s      i-----i
|  A  +------+  B  +--
s-----s      i--+--i
                |

At the first paragraph on page 9: s/and then process/and then processes/