Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

slitkows.ietf@gmail.com Fri, 10 July 2020 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <slitkows.ietf@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 9A8243A0D01; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:57:09 -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 Fq-fBN1PSyyI; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (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 81DD33A0CFF; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id q15so6272686wmj.2; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=RDFTR2G3as5GJTyS2OwMEjHHBkYzLcuUCYJ7NChiXuQ=; b=At5IPCeXGpDC46lTa+Z+MbcC7+YKl1iLpYLDna9VttYpiIqD5wZ5aNanoGUPqzMiWo SzeACLbUOqEmKGPUO9DC10LQtaoEftRHj1wQie7LeJfrV0z8h3I/U5JZCWxwLmRjw3CI SLwhDAsTjACC2P95adpeGl2b9yhmYbuf4qGP7Bw+3mOMqcU81SeEqFX2j+juBPbm76Ej BIPlmJIS2jWoNb8gNHX7JzHJK2kOX02ZIYBW8KqG9ydYkXiA4aw3n2Fp9uMb16g2X/yX iM0+HZZs0OgKrFdAcTisoyzTsVj2YKis68Hfs3MY1ftnIlrvWSrlDDFe4J+c5iSZ6jVu gXPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=RDFTR2G3as5GJTyS2OwMEjHHBkYzLcuUCYJ7NChiXuQ=; b=nPLVw0ACHEx/62D82CDr4xQSpzst+e1Vv+ojgiGZfksPYHzfHosOR8QgzfXNCHVXrG 2h5zBUfkVP/1szTAQn2wu1WgxruLov0aSmvDjObBJ4tMolJQFVX7IlkA9dKYH+sI/xKK nZHW41MXgfvy/IWVyiCjyjh2zvMmJoTONhYxPIHlgJJi4DuAhiBYb0S/50/FN7PHSi7x yFka4YLkTsvK3uexcwPz6VZkG3lFAi3997GQg8egBDImQoKzC7Aedp8B1QYTB5LiMpTv 2JmVmh8tvUbWH/DV9T0zHxSgzJQs3RpKe8+V0eGSzf5mInHOgslKnHENt1wD74FOBK28 mjhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BvCeRDGxivqh0kbwD1KEveLFAiefmTUW9q8GC1BhUC8Arwxx2 PKiDzUvk1K6bWFDcrbXwuypVv+g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxr4EyZXCapwMwk9EbGT4n5kssxToMeHdoJGuWuRoEQ2gyjIoXmRF0dT8mx6CSKAIraHV+8kQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9994:: with SMTP id b142mr5087759wme.141.1594389422723; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SLITKOWS3YYU6 ([173.38.220.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v7sm10204302wrp.45.2020.07.10.06.57.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
To: 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
References: <159433301602.19413.16120234350291165406@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <159433301602.19413.16120234350291165406@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:57:00 +0200
Message-ID: <001801d656c1$fc848b30$f58da190$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH2o3oKcXHuRf98TxftwpO3XMmFfqjAPEFQ
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/j3SiiyjuVan8NoXjZSPTvzA-06M>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:57:10 -0000

Hi Christer,

Thanks for your comments.
For your information, this document is just a revision of RFC5549, so 99,9% of the text is just copy/paste from the existing RFC.
Of course, we can improve things.

I'll take care of your comments for a next revision.
For the IANA section, as IANA will not have any action, I would prefer keeping the existing text from RFC5549. We can also let other people comment on that point.

Stephane


-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
Sent: vendredi 10 juillet 2020 00:17
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Almost Ready

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-bess-rfc5549revision-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2020-07-09
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I only have a couple of editorial nits.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where the "This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second paragraph.

Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying "This document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be explicit about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract.

Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol"
terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address"
terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether the terminology can be more consistent.

Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) are indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, please indicate the IANA registry name.