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

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:18 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'idr@ietf. org'
Cc: [e-mail]
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" <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

Missed one more nit.  Added below. 

 

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 8:32 AM
To: 'idr@ietf. org'
Cc: [e-mail]
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.