Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09

[Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>]

Dear Ketan: Looks good. Thank you for attending to my comments.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 8:46 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Vijay,
>
> The recent update below includes changes to address your comments.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-10
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 7:00 AM Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ketan: Sounds good.  Thank you for your time attending to my
>> comments.
>>
>> - vijay
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:26 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Vijay,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
>>>
>>> The changes discussed below would reflect in the next update of the
>>> document.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 1:20 AM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
>>>> 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-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-??
>>>> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
>>>> Review Date: 2022-08-12
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-17
>>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>>>
>>>> Summary: Draft is ready with nits for a Proposed Standard.
>>>>
>>>> Major issues: 0
>>>>
>>>> Minor issues: 1 (please see below)
>>>>
>>>> Nits/editorial comments: 4 (please see below)
>>>>
>>>> Minor:
>>>> - Sec. 3.6: Note that Type is "TBD" here.  Should this be 1046, as
>>>> shown in
>>>>  Table 1?  (Or is the use of 1046 still under discussion?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> KT> This allocation is currently under "Expert Review" - at this point,
>>> it is a suggested code point. This will hopefully be completed soon and we
>>> will update the document once done.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nits:
>>>> - I note that certain acronyms --- IGP, NLRI, ASLA --- are not
>>>> defined.  I
>>>> suspect that these are well-known in the community, hence need no
>>>> definition.
>>>> Just in case they are not, you may consider expanding the rare ones on
>>>> first
>>>> use.
>>>
>>>
>>> KT> Ack. Fixed some of these acronyms that are not well-known on their
>>> first use.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Sec. 1: s/Flexible algorithm is called so as/Flexible algorithm is so
>>>> called because/
>>>
>>>
>>> KT> Fixed
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Sec. 2: s/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node
>>>> is/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node is (are)/
>>>>   Reason: symmetry in the sentence construction
>>>>
>>>
>>> KT> Fixed
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Sec. 3.6: Is Figure 7 missing the trailing "//" for sub-TLV tpes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> KT> Fixed.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ketan
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>