Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC09513111C; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.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 ZU5G2mT6rZGy; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x241.google.com (mail-io0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::241]) (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 0CC741310EE; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x241.google.com with SMTP id r24-v6so3257933ioh.9; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=z0Ope9eQylytFzmavzHldRxWRdArNnc+kZDIvNwBWrQ=; b=iGU7yJf3W2QowJ2uVB+GmmBGLcYPfd5U/djnW8Q+9cIMeM296f764RmX/fVdTE+mBt RBN6Zy9s0yKOlryE89y8J7W/war577gV/EFcYCniKOsqkiRF7L1JnxX2a0/LLAvlAGvD 6ZnN/Yrtl+Axk92NUhJ8g6f4sBqfJm9UlzYFVXwHkjbqrlYP3WUsK3uL2dabLu9p2Tci ClWasuOpWAKua74Rrfj4WE4iYtFWIh4DumQyfXebSewbPG0gBqWvoCQKoqHPidEUrVVU jJvNqvQbgbYWlCxLArM5Zrl1aIOLkP/21n/mY+Pvd8RkwFhY3hDVXxbePWxkANkWxsq6 nzUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z0Ope9eQylytFzmavzHldRxWRdArNnc+kZDIvNwBWrQ=; b=MBoFDn8un5OkD8VKVzIWWFzuSVULagC5CS1dBTf5nhV/Wx7FM5aPB1pMlZRqOZgGyp J+zqp7GXyq5GLJ3P2yWWLOdBSSM6otPuxm5Xe12IoZVJh36JNGDORkJdgG7mpHDcsP0q P800n+TTabx8Gcg7r/m5jlFMotC16aSTN6UenROznnLF70IlgizLpx3DCZlvNF6tgYGU U4IR9e+iMQb7LHualWsp0dqK0YLvP/RQ/vYGPwNTQCLWzGADMG1iCxI7cQaykW9j9sYC zUhc35DuNO66u196ixuukLC8waEOkh/jku38EpzzYCWwARHphZ+4arPq7iL38CxcYWp3 oHvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3yq4aPxvRy4EfgOvcnJSdteiG/pfRdwK73q91WqCsoFmdlFVvK hDgNam3p4rBcH1ejvUkafer4wpn5kcP52cjQQAw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJ0cszYkM+7YUidFNodpB8pB4ImF+iKQcCb3LMmIc2/OocBNJQG9x/a5loXIFO8jfBasH1AqI6ugoNBkjN59FE=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c741:: with SMTP id x62-v6mr15319598iof.99.1529497444203; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:f505:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DF35797@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <152694106121.7908.13286903159935171274@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DF35797@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:24:03 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUfNq0T4KS9X2=CeMKDiBipUseTVQyknaFduyj8+mH7wMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8c0fc056f11dfcf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6FjUfPZZeRv2eeMlTvr-N6ZHYc8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:24:13 -0000

Hi Med,

Thank you for your update.

Best,

Ines.

2018-06-13 12:15 GMT+03:00 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>:

> Hi Ines,
>
> Thank you for the review (Apologies for the delay to reply to this
> review).
>
> All your comments were taken into account. Please the new version at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical/
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Ines Robles [mailto:mariainesrobles@googlemail.com]
> > Envoyé : mardi 22 mai 2018 00:18
> > À : rtg-dir@ietf.org
> > Cc : draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> sfc@ietf.org
> > Objet : Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
> >
> > Reviewer: Ines Robles
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> > The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts
> > as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on
> special
> > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the
> Routing
> > ADs.
> > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> > ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> >
> > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> > would
> > be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> > comments
> >  that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> > updating
> >  the draft.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08
> > Reviewer: Ines Robles
> > Review Date: 05-21-2018
> > Intended status: Informational
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written
> and
> > clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful. The draft
> presents
> > some
> > minor issues that I think should be resolved before publication.
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > Major Issues: No major issues found.
> >
> > Minor Issues:
> >
> > - It would be nice to add a terminology section that references section
> 1.4
> > of
> > rfc7665, section 1.3 of rfc8300 (since you are using NSH-aware defined
> there)
> > and add definitions such as IBN. - Question: about this sentence in pag.
> 3:
> > "...The "domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be under the
> >    control of a single organization...". Is it the same if we say "...The
> >    "SFC-Enabled Domains" discussed in this document are assumed to be
> under
> > the
> >    control of a single organization ..."?
> > Nits:
> > -- It would be nice to expand NSH in the Introduction section.
> > -- In Figure 1, it would be nice to add a number to the Classifiers,
> > e.g.CF#1,
> > then when you mention that in the text you can reference it, e.g. "One
> path
> > is
> > shown from edge classifier (CF#1) to SFF1 to Sub-domain#1..." -- In
> Figure 6,
> > it would be nice to add in the legend section the meaning for DPI.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ines.
>
>