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

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 11 April 2016 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.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 9E02B12EE57; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Xp1XX2MAlpmb; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89BD412EE49; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10419; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1460380684; x=1461590284; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=oZqfllehZu/kSTYc5Xeipa0FjaQbYZ6SnBFdKO/hM8s=; b=U8ZjeD5QFzOkJ8+oG7EB8BvPO0D5q4VTaRWh5r0yb6AvJAypfgCilQTq 6yvzf4Jh2fnCtxvA/ZE1EEk7tWgLo6JBWls4G+BBr1uncWFHt1zkiEZMd 4nI8eX52Qdj8apgr7kaBBmUcOLDz9lzJLLmn88y2VSaS8SeBqL7JYOU51 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AKAgDvogtX/40NJK1dgmtMU30GtWKEc?= =?us-ascii?q?wENgXKGDQKBKzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEEBAQEELUwQAgEIDgMEAQEoBzIUCQgCBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?NBYgnvjEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVhiGES4R1hSAFh22GGXqEGYRrA?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4LgWeETYhZhh+JBgEeAQFCg2dsiS1+AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.24,462,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="90138616"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Apr 2016 13:18:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3BDI3ww023751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:18:03 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:18:02 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:18:02 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop - Shepherd's review
Thread-Index: AQHRhpOaD5grVTQoNk6ETLHZgErIK5+E7L6A
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:18:02 +0000
Message-ID: <D3311991.11E101%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <001f01d18692$54baf1e0$fe30d5a0$@ndzh.com> <003201d18692$9835b9a0$c8a12ce0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <003201d18692$9835b9a0$c8a12ce0$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D331199111E101aretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OWF3ml-kIj5OBiXWlQUkMHXNl3Y>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-route-oscillation-stop@ietf.org" <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 13:18:06 -0000

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<mailto: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<mailto: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.