Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04

Francesca, thanks for your reviews. Al, thanks for addressing Francesca’s review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On May 25, 2018, at 4:24 AM, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> Thanks for addressing my comments, it looks good.
> 
> Francesca
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>
>> Sent: den 23 maj 2018 15:39
>> To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>; gen-
>> art@ietf.org
>> Cc: ippm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6.all@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04
>> 
>> Hi Francesca,
>> one last item to resolve, we should be good now.
>> see below,
>> Al
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Francesca Palombini [mailto:francesca.palombini@ericsson.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:44 AM
>>> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>; gen-art@ietf.org
>>> Cc: ippm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
>>> draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6.all@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04
>>> 
>>> Hi Al,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>> I cut selected parts of the email to detail some of my comments, see
>>> inline.
>>> 
>>> Francesca
>>> 
>> ...snip...
>>>>> To be consistent with the first bullet of the list above ("It
>>>>> includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific
>>>>> criteria."), I would rephrase the text above with something on the lines
>> of:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "For an IPvX (...) packet to be standard-formed, the IPvX-specific
>>>>> criteria for a valid IP header are:"
>>>> [acm]
>>>> Your wording suggestion dropped the clear indication of a requirement.
>>>> We are using the RFC2119 terms consistently for requirements.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was trying to point out that the first part of the section (first
>>> bullet
>>> list) does not use RFC2119 terms. I read the second bullet list as a
>>> "sub- list" of the first one, which is why I was suggesting removing
>>> the REQUIRED term. Or you could rephrase the first list to use REQUIRED
>> too.
>>> Anyway, this is nit-picking. Feel free to disregard.
>>> 
>> [acm]
>> I see your point now, and I changed the sentence introducing the initial (IP
>> version-agnostic list) to read:
>> 
>> A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following REQUIRED criteria:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art