Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-08
Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Tue, 30 June 2020 12:24 UTC
Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 D83C33A05A4; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 slF-U0fMOoHe; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (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 D3B0C3A0544; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 22so18624025wmg.1; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=sw9NirEvYhdabFR6g+Ls3wy1T4JQ9r0AeTQ/KU9e/n0=; b=j18RIlJmzGGi7fgA5vn6haYpGzWOp2n7M723Y5UjMVxN7aGpKkO+aWzGv1jGRnrPL0 jetQOJuASwXSCamsjyPxPylOJfpeuHz4yW6FEuYrD9qxUqGKPnp9RtpletifSBeals0x RipdXouqtZBIS8qp9Fc1F/aVONxYKhxIIV/ZSZHs2usPTEPM+d/BztyPgaKubHuXie6U HPK5NxETEzJkLBA5DSy/NlLFJWErded/i3kR23wv2XizKfyjkErH0zra8iwRB4m8/PaF SbSOQQZr6avWsx5YQ5/FdRgpXDwU+4WuW3rK3BcdSUZhkfL5lEifxfctFN1M66qaJzlk JcdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=sw9NirEvYhdabFR6g+Ls3wy1T4JQ9r0AeTQ/KU9e/n0=; b=O/OnmcED0SqrStACHZ1frnH4sRqhDQDnilbaN2MZ9QqSqck5rxLhUX0gkIHI/26DA5 sbfMh3dNZOKRQjCA94G62eqKMJ4ZqS+T9LqOTYH1ssovjHfrswzWVuV+TXXOnU9Si0a1 WHBx4BLyB43Pgr9GE7Deu7yq/VGqZLcsF9lgE3VYhSJdKOaYv5AlkmHYcUVD2Y5eCoBk rwAWhIq3pzcOhITvHZvxBumwtFXuM9VB5EhbbRknqzwZSsuSrS5WoykBVEoH9E7BjNr9 jcT6IO0UAVysWti4m1Y2nN9C+2EqnAXQNOPTq887ivisTExZcdUpUg8/9NBIg0M1UOuD ZbqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WNTC4Do66hWoskBWYiC8s90nl/ZTgJbKHJ6CWEXNN50xpNq0U QydcfgbE72OjZRZdeddvQtw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/hGqYjJ8Y5c9r6pDqS1fk9b+05KexZuumTcCr77ljdkSERG77h9miS/1daBc1Rgj+tujSPQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c343:: with SMTP id l3mr21104611wmj.178.1593519876286; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from appleton.fritz.box ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o29sm3827093wra.5.2020.06.30.05.24.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 05:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <159345181106.6204.7060455676708406175@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:24:34 +0100
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework.all@ietf.org, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, rtg-ads@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C575861D-0C01-4245-9B36-A3E5B17F6D4F@gmail.com>
References: <159345181106.6204.7060455676708406175@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/XOh_4tt5az8RqLjptoZcLpUMFqI>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-08
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: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:24:40 -0000
> On 29 Jun 2020, at 18:30, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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-sfl-framework-08 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2020-06-29 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > A couple of minor issues and a couple of *extremely* nitty nits, but overall > looks ready to go. > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational instead of > Proposed Standard. The shepherd's writeup does not justify it, and in fact the > writeup refers to the document as a "specification", which is exactly what it > appears to be. It defines the use of SFLs, describes how they are processed by > the endpoints, describes how they are aggregated, etc. While the document may > not be standalone, I don't see how it's really an Informational document. I > suggest restarting the Last Call for Proposed, and if for some reason it needs > to be Informational, it can always be downgraded after Last Call. Pete - the “tradition” in routing is that such documents are Informational and the detailed protocol specifications are standards (there are a couple of those in progress about to finish baking). I leave it up to our AD to pass judgement on the matter as this is a simple fix, but I don’t think the changed status is REQUIRED. > > The Security Considerations section says, "The issue noted in Section 6 is a > security consideration." I'm not sure I understand why that is. Section 6 explains the privacy considerations, and privacy and security are close friends so I cross referenced the section rather than repeating it. I suggest that we wait to see what SECDIR wants to do before changing any text. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 1: "(see Section 3)" seems unnecessary. I can take that out on the next version, it was intended as a forward reference to a completely new contract in MPLS. > > Section 3: I thought the "Consider..." construction made those paragraphs > unnecessarily wordy and a bit harder to follow. > > I will reword the first two sentences para 2 of section 3 to simplify the language. Thanks for the comments Stewart > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-m… Pete Resnick via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Pete Resnick
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Alissa Cooper