Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-08

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Thu, 01 March 2012 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.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 B5BBB21E8291 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sG1CiLCG2Js5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:58:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hubrelay-by-03.bt.com (hubrelay-by-03.bt.com [62.7.242.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B791521E823D for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.109) by EVMHR03-UKBR.bt.com (10.216.161.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.159.2; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:58:11 +0000
Received: from dyw02134app01.domain1.systemhost.net (193.113.249.13) by EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:58:13 +0000
Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (147.149.196.177) by dyw02134app01.domain1.systemhost.net (10.35.25.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.323.0; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:58:12 +0000
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1330628292839; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:58:12 +0000
Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.73.162.88]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id q21Iw6xq017251; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:58:07 GMT
Message-ID: <201203011858.q21Iw6xq017251@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 18:57:56 +0000
To: Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACvMsLF5XNGWM16=vsnto4oFmNwLwajqE6num8U4z99FfKfn1A@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CACvMsLF5XNGWM16=vsnto4oFmNwLwajqE6num8U4z99FfKfn1A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:23:24 -0800
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Mar 2012 18:58:16 -0000

Pete,

Thanks. You're right re S.3.3.3.4.

Suggest delete/ (like the limited functionality option in Section 3.3.3.1)/

I also suggest the end of 3.3.3. needs to mention RFC6040, rather 
than waiting until 3.3.3.4, which otherwise looks like an afterthought.

OLD 3.3.3:
=====================================================================
                          Two different modes are defined in [RFC3168]
    for IP-in-IP tunnels and a third one in [RFC4301] for IP-in-IPsec
    tunnels.
=====================================================================
NEW 3.3.3:
=====================================================================
                          Two different modes are defined in [RFC3168]
    for IP-in-IP tunnels and a third one in [RFC4301] for IP-in-IPsec
    tunnels. [RFC6040] updates both these RFCs to rationalise them into
    one consistent approach.
=====================================================================


Agree that all identified nits need correcting.

Thanks again for your time on this.



Bob

At 04:33 29/02/2012, Pete McCann wrote:
>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>gt;.
>
>Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
>or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
>Document: draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-08
>Reviewer: Peter McCann
>Review Date: 2012-02-28
>IETF LC End Date:
>IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-01
>
>Summary: Ready
>
>Major issues: None
>
>Minor issues:
>
>Section 3.3.3.4:
>    With the normal mode, the ECN field of the inner header is copied to
>    the ECN field of the outer header on encapsulation (like the limited
>    functionality option in Section 3.3.3.1).
>The limited functionality option says to set the outer header to not-ECT.
>This seems to contradict the above statement.
>
>Nits/editorial comments:
>
>Section 3.3.3.3:
>    full-
>    functionality option in Section 3.3.2.2.
>I think you meant "Section 3.3.3.2".  One other place in this
>paragraph needs this correction.
>
>Section 4.2:
>    The problem with 3-in-1 encoding is that the 10-codepoint does not
>    survive decapsulation with the tunneling options in Section 3.3.2.1 -
>    3.3.2.3.
>Again, you meant 3.3.3.1 - 3.3.3.3

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design