Re: [Gen-art] [Detnet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05

Hi David,
Thanks, the new text is clearer
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Black, David
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 1:20 AM
> To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: Black, David; last-call@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-
> ip.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Detnet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05
> 
> Hi Roni,
> 
> Inline ...
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Roni Even via
> > Datatracker
> > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:44 AM
> > To: gen-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: last-call@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-detnet-ip.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Detnet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05
> >
> >
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> >
> > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > 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-detnet-ip-??
> > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > Review Date: 2020-03-09
> > IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-13
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC
> > with nits
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > 1. In section 3 the paragraph before the last one " the appropriate
> > DetNet flow-specific information and ensures that the receives the
> > proper traffic treatment within the domain", looks to me that it
> > should be "that the flow receives ..."
> [David>] That looks like what was intended.
> 
> >
> > 2.  In section 6  I could not parse the second level bullet "When the
> > DSCP field is used in flow identification, a list of field values that
> > may be used by a specific flow."
> [David>] The text after the comma is intended to describe the management and
> control information used to identify the flow, referring back to the DSCP field.
> 
> As I'm responsible for this DSCP list "thorn" in the WG's "side" ;-), here's a
> suggestion to improve clarity:
> 
> OLD
>       *  If the DSCP field is to be used in flow identification.
>          Ignoring the DSCP filed is optional.
> 
>       *  When the DSCP field is used in flow identification, a list of
>          field values that may be used by a specific flow.
> NEW
>       *  Whether or not the DSCP field is used in flow identification.
>           Use of the DSCP field for flow identification is optional.
> 
>       *  If the DSCP field is used to identify a flow, then the flow
>           identification information (for that flow) includes a list of
>           DSCPs used by that flow.
> 
> I took out "that may be used" as including too much detail - that text covers
> situations where not all of the DSCP values are actually used, e.g., there could be
> 5 possible DSCP values for a flow, but only 2 of them occur in actual packets.
> That's not particularly important here, as the logic that determines whether or
> not a packet is part of that flow has to match on all 5 possible DSCP values.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > detnet mailing list
> > detnet@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art