Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 20 January 2016 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9461A1A75 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:08:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 CY7PBFceaPLy for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:08:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 523A01B3119 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:07:45 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f797e6d000007600-60-569f404fb3df
Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E3.B5.30208.F404F965; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:07:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.166]) by ESESSHC017.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.69]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:07:43 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprevidi@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07
Thread-Index: AdFSvY9HopzpNvjTQ9SXDq14MdUR+gAAh4CAACZ16IA=
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:07:42 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37D4C4B0@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37D493C4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <D0529829-56DC-441F-A65C-B71C3CF95929@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0529829-56DC-441F-A65C-B71C3CF95929@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprIIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7q66/w/wwgycbJC3aP8xksrj66jOL xfrdj5gcmD2m/N7I6rFkyU8mjy+XP7MFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZXTvX8VYsEyx4vHHE2wN jDsUuhg5OSQETCRuHd3HDGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgMKPE9UfHWCCcJYwSP1sOMnYxcnCwCVhI dP/TBmkQETCVOD/jPDNIDbPAIkaJw8sWs4EkhAXcJL4teswCUeQucX7rNDYI20ri9LmrYHNY BFQlPr1OAgnzCvhKnDj+C2pxA6PE9MOv2EESnAK2EjuXbmIFsRmBrvt+ag0TiM0sIC5x68l8 JoirBSSW7DkP9YGoxMvH/1ghbEWJj6/2ge1iFtCUWL9LH6JVUWJK90N2iL2CEidnPmGZwCg2 C8nUWQgds5B0zELSsYCRZRWjaHFqcVJuupGxXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYEQd3PJbdQfj5TeO hxgFOBiVeHg3tM8LE2JNLCuuzD3EKMHBrCTCm6I/P0yINyWxsiq1KD++qDQntfgQozQHi5I4 b5JMY5iQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBMUhRXG72u81Ltif7pvNkueSlWV6K36+Y/qTeXvrJ o718e66cz7m4YOr8Jy+vhsmqK9absIaVXPb9u6n4ha5qzMXXOwocqhX4tNtjK79cOB3Jru4e c9TvgWiqgWbvSfUfPqxp1jOWsZW57Um4UCyZcd2jMXj6ibB51w/WRL/89iH8efzmH2eYlViK MxINtZiLihMBXzH8WaQCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/y5HlBWti9vKTw516bDHSM_kA1zc>
Cc: "draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:08:03 -0000

Hi,

>thanks for your comments. I fixed most of them however, regarding the last comment (Q_2_1), we tried to keep both OSPF (now RFC7471) and IS-IS drafts aligned even in the descriptions.
>
>The text you pointed out is in fact the same in RFC7471. I’d like to keep both protocols completely aligned and would prefer to keep the text as is.

That's ok. If nobody else has had any issues, I can live with the existing text :)

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer




> On Jan 19, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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>
> Document:                                                  draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-07.txt
> Reviewer:                                                   Christer Holmberg
> Review Date:                                               19 January 2016
> IETF LC End Date:                                          30 December 2015
> IETF Telechat Date:                                       21 January 2016
> Summary:           The document is well written, and is almost ready for publication. However, there are some editorial issues that I ask the authors to address.
> Major Issues: None
> Minor Issues: None
> Editorial Issues:
>  
> GENERAL:
> --------------
>  
> Q_GEN_1:
>  
> In section 1, you say that the extension is hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions".
>  
> However, you then refer to it as e.g. "TE Metric Extensions" and "ISIS TE Metric Extensions".
>  
> Please use consistent terminology.
>  
>  
> Q_GEN_2:
>  
> Sometimes the text says “sub-TLV”, sometimes “SubTLV”, and sometimes “Sub TLV”. Please use consistent terminology.
>  
>  
> SECTION 1:
> --------------
>  
> Q_1_1:
>  
> I suggest to rewrite:
>  
> “This document describes extensions to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV 
> defined in [RFC5305] (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions"),…”
>  
> …to:
>  
> “This document describes extensions (hereafter called "IS-IS TE Metric 
> Extensions") to IS-IS Extended Reachability TLV defined in [RFC5305],…”
>  
> … to make it more clear that "IS-IS TE Metric Extensions" refers to the extensions, and not to the TLV.
>  
>  
> SECTION 2:
> --------------
>  
> Q_2_1:
>  
> I have some difficulties to follow the A,B,C bullet list logic.
>  
> I think it would be more clear to structure it e.g. like:
>  
> “From an  MPLS perspective, the intent of the A bit is to permit LSP 
> ingress nodes to determine whether the link referenced in the sub-TLV 
> affects any of the LSPs for which it is ingress.
>  
> If any of the LSPs are affected, the receiving node shall determine 
> whether those LSPs still meet end-to-end performance objectives. If 
> the objectives are not met the receiving node could conceivably move 
> affected traffic to a pre- established protection LSP or establish a new LSP and place the traffic in it.”