Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

Erik Kline <ek@loon.co> Thu, 13 December 2018 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.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 F3D01130E26 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:13:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=loon.co
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 pJQqHDHe4rHs for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x129.google.com (mail-it1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8511130EA8 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x129.google.com with SMTP id g76so6110724itg.2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:13:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=loon.co; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=loHmlBUWqygl6iFeil7aRnB/vLi12zuYFAKPqR6AsLU=; b=VfZouVfpJVsbz4nkfQ0U2iLW/SlKUablPR6geiXbN79+XBqTAisU9Kwl7WzdmVm0s9 YAg+I3R2YApW4DsNkvlTZPzoUExWyRvQxS9aN+bhNs3OZZsc1oZMb8ePTRINtA+Gtz0l iOPuGkrTvGEYz6F7WJOYnEUVtLwyQJc+ZYlfE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=loHmlBUWqygl6iFeil7aRnB/vLi12zuYFAKPqR6AsLU=; b=LQIJnKxqbb01yF/Wh9uoeQ4Sqr8bW34pMNq4HldYCX/kjR/dffQBC5AM/I7R9Fu7OB RYKYxUEpjGmYHXsRgWdZIEC7fd5ybJBxVCf6kkeBMJ6jvWQGumxdB5g5G0FmbY6Pyo4B GbOkQzAFYUGKC5SDwrtjXWTHN9um7ma7FKXxtDWAaPNrYpIajZoDQ9iiMInOeR7vH47Y CHdA31XD7PupVID9uaUyOt58tHsvPALcvyWsvgsH1RQZMQFfV6NTW3HtXS08JLkMMubT o/pHoMjizDuBlLCYKtDD5Mu2s5RHgnOjTTvXthy4Qviuwx899ImUXJXCIFvLg2UvGQ+b PLZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZiHEIwlV60DYKeIkx67XNZr/SMc72++E2jTvbMPzJfe34g+HZp wj6UBFTht5vQCyqo8wyWEkOAUX471JHCmnZn04YX6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XBs+Xl4evwumapPEghnndgBce0a4j9dxbuq6XQn8Fh16DegBoOJ/x53dzgrVLBvQrQF2tqS1kspMQIoVRn6e0=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:2208:: with SMTP id o8mr1035091ito.23.1544739184555; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:13:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154468622674.21337.6779624997213312596@ietfa.amsl.com> <c55fbf14f6ec43f5a788cb2c90c4684a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <c55fbf14f6ec43f5a788cb2c90c4684a@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Reply-To: ek@loon.co
From: Erik Kline <ek@loon.co>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:12:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAedzxotVWRFcTtHPBmdM2ktRBmm_QxJYx=Ur1JNf-b5WR9AqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ginsberg@cisco.com
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005e5d43057cee9e84"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/X1tXqX8gvWol6-RvblqlV1ny2NY>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:13:08 -0000

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 00:26, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>;
wrote:

> Erik -
>
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>;
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:30 PM
> > To: gen-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: idr@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
> >
> > Reviewer: Erik Kline
> > 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-te-pm-bgp-??
> > Reviewer: Erik Kline
> > Review Date: 2018-12-12
> > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the
> meanings
> > of
> > which are defined elsewhere.
> >
> > Major issues:  [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a
> draft.
> >  I expect they'll get published together.
> >
> [Les:] The reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis (rather than
> current RFC7810) was put in at the request of the AD.
> You are correct that this introduces a dependency between this document
> and 7810bis and this document will remain in MISSREF state until 7810bis is
> published.
> As both drafts are in the review process we do not expect there to be a
> significant delay.
>
> In any case this isn't a "major" issue is it? It seems worthwhile to have
> the reference be to the newer version of 7810 - and this certainly isn’t
> the only case where one document is dependent on another which has yet to
> be published.
>
>
>
Not a major issue for me; I marked the document as Ready with Nits.  I just
felt like "major" was the section where this trivially obvious observation
would belong.


> > Minor issues: None.
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some
> > readability
> > cleanup, perhaps.
> >
> > [1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow
> scan
> > well
> > for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of
> > resources"?
> >
> [Les:] "state and resource availability" is fine with me.
>
> > [2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication
> > mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly.  "are assumed to
> > have
> > implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."?
> >
> [Les:] How about "assumed to support all the required..."
> ??
>
> If you are OK with the suggestions I will publish an updated version very
> soon.
>
>    Les
>
>
Anything is fine. I think it just read ~funny~ to me, grammatically.
"assumed to meet all security and authentication requirements", sounds
good.


> > I'm sure the editors will have better ideas.
> >
>
>