Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 11 April 2016 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A262012EE66; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.739
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 ZkqZ7_nXlBpD; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (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 9238312DE70; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.77;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)'" <aretana@cisco.com>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <001f01d18692$54baf1e0$fe30d5a0$@ndzh.com> <003201d18692$9835b9a0$c8a12ce0$@ndzh.com> <D3311991.11E101%aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3311991.11E101%aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:35:27 -0400
Message-ID: <024101d193f7$025d5010$0717f030$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0242_01D193D5.7B5043F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJwHADPowyCG80nMJCeGXCz75cO6QIKivx4AU4ggI+eLPBQwA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ng0WWEVinvEcQ6VKpsTYVfX9gJc>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:35:41 -0000

Alvaro: 

 

I noted that the ID-NITS was confused in my shepherd report.   I believe the
next step is to get an AD's evaluation from Alia Atlas (responsible AD). 

 

Sue 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:18 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'idr@ietf. org'
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review

 

Sue:

 

Hi!

 

I just posted an update to address your comments.

 

The last nit from id-nits was wrong, as there are no IP addresses in the
document.  The tool got confused with "Section 9.1.2.2". :-)

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

 

On 3/25/16, 8:33 AM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:

 

Missed one more nit.  Added below. 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 8:32 AM
To: 'idr@ietf. org'
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review

 

Daniel, Alvaro, Enke, John: 

 

This is a shepherd's review for draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop.
Apparently, I missed sending the shepherd's report during the first call. 

 

I apologize for the delay, but I was waiting for an update for the
add-path-guidelines which failed WG LC.  At this point, that draft will go
back in the queue as WG draft, and we will not hold up these valuable
drafts. 

 

Sue Hares

 

=================

 

Status: ready to go to IESG 

 

Major/Minor comments: None 

 

Editorial comments: Nits 

 

Abstract: 

Old /In this document we present/ 

New/ This document presents/ 

 

[why:  Not standard language. ] 

 

 

Section 5.1 and section 5.2 would be clearer to the average reader if you
would:

 

Replace in section 5.1 

Old /2 or 3 in the ADD-PATH / 

New/ 2 (send multiple paths)  or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) in the
ADD-PATH/

 

Old /1 or 3 for the same/ 

New /1 (receive multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths for the
same/

 

Replace in section 5.2 

 Old /2 or 3 in the ADD-PATH / 

New/ 2 (send multiple paths)  or 3 (send/receive multiple paths) in the
ADD-PATH/

 

 

Old /1 or 3 for the same/ 

New /1 (receive multiple paths) or 3 (send/receive multiple paths for the
same/

 

NITS claim: 

There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses

in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

Please fix.