Re: [Idr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the quick response, Sue.  Stay well...

Barry

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:49 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Barry:
>
> Thank you for the editorial comments on this draft.
>
>  I'm sorry I missed the "i.e." in the edits.  Of course it should be "e.g."
>
> We'll address the remainder in the next draft.
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:28 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jie Dong; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with COMMENT)
>
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> All of this is editorial:
>
> — Abstract —
>
>    Other applications (ie. centralized control of traffic in a SDN or
>    NFV context) are also possible.
>
> I don’t think you mean “i.e.” here, but “e.g.”  I would avoid the Latin (for exactly this reason: many people don’t understand it and misuse it) and say, “Other applications, such as centralized control of traffic in an SDN or NFV context, are also possible.”
>
> — Section 1 —
>
>    Modern IP routers contain both the capability to forward traffic
>    according to IP prefixes as well as to classify, shape, rate limit,
>    filter, or redirect packets based on administratively defined
>
> The two things that come after “both” have to be parallel, and they’re not.
> This will read better without the word “both”, like this:
>
> NEW
>    Modern IP routers have the capabilities to forward traffic
>    according to IP prefixes and to classify, shape, rate limit,
>    filter, or redirect packets based on administratively defined END
>
>    Section 4 of this document defines a general procedure to encode Flow
>    Specification for aggregated traffic flows so that they can be
>    distributed as a BGP [RFC4271] NLRI.
>
> I think this has to say “Flow Specifications”, plural, yes?  That matches “they”.
>
>    automated systems are used, care should be taken to ensure their
>    correctness as well as the limitations of the systems that receive
>    and process the advertised Flow Specifications
>
> How does “as well as the limitations...” fit into the sentence?  There seems to be something missing here.
>
> — Section 3 —
>
>    prefix as well as community matching and manipulation, must apply to
>    the Flow Specification defined NLRI-type
>
> I can’t tell whether “Flow Specification defined” is meant to be a compound modifier for “NLRI-type” (in which case the former needs hyphens and the latter does not), or this is meant to describe a defined NLRI tyoe called “Flow Specification”.  I think you mean the latter.  Can you re-word this or re-punctuate it to make it clear?
>
> — Section 5 —
>
>    In order to achieve this goal, this document specifies two
>    application specific NLRI identifiers that provide traffic filters,
>    and a set of actions encoding in BGP Extended Communities.  The two
>    application specific NLRI identifiers are:
>
> Both instances of “application-specific” should be hyphenated.
>
> — Section 6 —
>
>    By default a Flow Specification NLRI MUST be validated such that it
>    is considered feasible if and only if all of the below is true:
>
> Make it “are true”.
>
>       c) There are no more specific unicast routes
>
> Hyphenate “more-specific” to distinguish it from “there are no more (specific unicast routes)”.
>
>    By originator of a BGP route, we mean either the address of the
>
> But nothing else says “originator of a BGP route”.  (b) does say “originator of the best-match unicast route”... is that what you mean here?  Can you make this match up so it’s clearer?
>
> On thinking more about this text, I think maybe putting quotation marks around “originator” in the quoted sentence is all that’s needed.
>
>    Specification information that conveys a more or equally specific
>    destination prefix.
>
> This needs awkward hyphenation ti be correct.  I suggest avoiding that by saying, “Specification information that conveys a destination prefix that is more or equally specific.”
>
>    Thus, as long as there are no more specific
>    unicast routes, received from a different neighboring AS, which would
>    be affected by that Flow Specification.
>
> As above, hyphenate “more-specific”.  And then fix the sentence, as it doesn’t appear to be a complete sentence.
>
> — Section 7 —
>
>    treated as interfering Traffic filtering actions (see below).
>
> Please capitalize “Filtering Actions”, to be consistent.
>
>    Some Traffic Filtering Actions may interfere with each other even
>    contradict.
>
> Make it “may interfere with or even contradict each other.”
>
> — Section 7.7 —
>
>    behaviour (ie. match - replace - delete communities on administrative
>    boundaries).
>
> I can’t understand what’s in the parentheses, nor even whether “i.e.” is correct or it should be “e.g.”.
>
> — Section 9 —
>
>    statistics facilities.  While this is an implementation specific
>
> Hyphenate “implementation-specific”.
>
> — Section 12 —
>
>    This may stress the receiving systems, exceed their
>    maximum capacity or may lead to unwanted Traffic Filtering Actions
>    being applied to flows.
>
> Change “capacity or may lead” to “capacity, or lead” — the “may” is already there at the start of the sentence, and the Oxford comma helps readability here.
>
>
>
>