Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

Alissa,

Yes, they will be. We were waiting for all LC comments to come in, and it
looks like we’ve reached the end of the LC period. We’ll check with Deborah
for guidance on when to update.

Cheers,
Andy

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; hopefully
> it means Brian’s comments will be addressed? I have entered a No Objection
> ballot.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>
>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06
>>
>> 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
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review Date: 2018-06-12
>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21
>>
>> Summary: Ready with nits
>> --------
>>
>> Comments:
>> ---------
>>
>> This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a
>> Bad Thing.
>>
>> Nits:
>> -----
>>
>> > 1.  Introduction
>> ....
>> >   This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
>> >   word in all but exceptional circumstances.
>>
>> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of
>> section 4).
>>
>> > 3.  Background
>> ....
>> >   A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this
>> >   problem:
>> >
>> >   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html
>>
>> No, it's no longer recent. How about:
>>
>>    For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this
>>    problem:
>>
>> > 7.  Operational Considerations
>> >
>> >   CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be
>> >   subject to default operational mode of not being enabled.
>>
>> That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:
>>
>>    A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the
>> PW.
>>    The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>
>
>