Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,
Please see my reply inline tagged as [GF].

Thanks,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:33 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02



> On Jun 29, 2022, at 11:57 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Russ,
> Thank you for your review.
> I will revise the draft to address your comments.
> Please see my reply inline tagged as [GF].
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:04 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02
> 
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> 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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review Date: 2022-06-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-21
> IESG Telechat date: 2022-07-14
> 
> 
> Summary: Ready with Nits
> 
> 
> Major Concerns: None
> 
> 
> Minor Concerns:
> 
> Section 8 says: "... can be incorporated into A, ..."
> I think that "A" is described in Figure 5, but it took me a few minutes to figure that out.  Please clarify.
> 
> [GF]: Sure, I will clarify that A is introduced in RFC8321bis and possibly refer to the Figure.
> 
> 
> Section 9 says:
> 
>   Either one or two flag bits might be available for marking in
>   different deployments:
> 
> This is followed by three labeled paragraphs.  Can this sentence be expanded to cover all three of the paragraphs that follow?
> 
> [GF]: Yes, I will highlight that three possibilities are possible.
> 
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Section 5.1: s/split our monitoring/split the monitoring/
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> Section 5.1: s/In our monitoring network/In the monitoring network/
> 
> [GF]: Ok

All of the above look fine.

[GF]: Great. I will update the draft accordingly.

> 
> Section 5.1 says:
> 
>   The algorithm described above network is an iterative clustering
>   algorithm, but it is also possible to apply a recursive clustering
>   algorithm by using the node-node adjacency matrix representation
>   [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM].
> 
> I cannot understand is sentence.
> 
> [GF]: [IEEE-ACM-ToN-MPNPM] describes different algorithms (iterative and recursive) for cluster partition. In this document we only describe the iterative approach since it executes steps in iterations. While the recursive algorithm is detailed in the paper. I will reword this paragraph to make it clearer.

This is a grammar concern.  "The algorithm described above network is ..." does not parse.

[GF]: Ok, I will revise the sentence. The word "network" is not necessary.

Russ