Re: [Int-dir] [BULK] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Wed, 04 November 2020 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8E73A0AC1; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:33:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tix.at
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 u5TIDaWwoXki; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fbsd.host (mail.fbsd.host [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70F883A12AE; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:33:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; s=rev1; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type :Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=hge5G5zaeHydCB9MNUlpnrlJNVCPu/Ll9BRjaUurcKA=; b=AgA7KLtoucRJ1yPVTnsdvMN6gc 2oZLZrudyYfVBcDQOndDzR28wjasw8thtdUXFiUP8cLg0FLk7L8Nm4TAMmYvHlVDaFFVqhvvQa4my DNT/rwynD9a0A5WZz3yYjiJbOW+5N+Kv+hdZ/AvO5V8d0jAeGy5Yy7cVOSTAB0CYaKbrnwSQ7fXvF OeGoIO+GyCO5UxanTeU1uFifg84Q/IRzLWs7uHCNdez4D6gffl3kQ4P8+LfpyJ5PRDFoALUBab2rp DcEnfyY0aLfHXpFzeGsoTrl3ApXYvlNobqJJFHS3qoexuv6FdOsPs5ajy70YiWOaHGL1kOHO+T/9d l1nnE5uQ==;
Received: from 80-110-113-91.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.113.91] helo=[192.168.64.148]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1kaJqc-000EgI-Gu; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:33:16 +0100
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <0B4B729D-C829-4C38-91AB-2A30557A0A6E@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_320F7652-BFA8-44F7-88FE-30AA5F60F338"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 15:33:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHeLtREQwaBt0jfpGS9AFAxjvsjDDU9TRJGWXEFTtpDgg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6.all@ietf.org
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
References: <160383583753.1693.10113897796672615402@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEHeLtREQwaBt0jfpGS9AFAxjvsjDDU9TRJGWXEFTtpDgg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Scanned-By: primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Wed, 04 Nov 2020 15:33:14 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/7D5GWNTZXVVAmrgKEGhrj4kmDUI>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] [BULK] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 14:33:36 -0000

Hi Donald,

Thank you for your review and comments. See my comments inline. I also attached a updated document that contains changes resulting from your comments.

Since the draft submission is closed now I will ask Alvaro to publish the changed document today.

Cheers Christoph


> Section 4: Does the IETF allow direct references into github in the
> main body of a standards track RFC? Looks like all the comparison code
> is in the Appendix. Can the github reference at least be moved to the
> Appendix?
> 
> Section 11.2: As far as I know, there are only normative and
> informational references, not "URIs" references.

This is exactly the same as in rfc5575bis which has been edited by rfc-editors, I think we can leave this for rfc-editors. I see they somehow removed this reference.

> 
> ## Editorial
> Section 1, 1st sentence: "to be also capable of supporting" -> "to
> also support"

Edited as suggested.

> 
> Section 1, 2nd sentence:
> OLD
> This document analyzes the differences of IPv6 [RFC8200] flows
> description from those of traditional IPv4 packets and propose a
> subset of new Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] encoding formats to
> enable Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules
> [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] for IPv6.

> NEW
> This document analyzes the differences between describing IPv6
> [RFC8200] flows and those of traditional IPv4 packets. It specifies
> new Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271] encoding formats to enable
> Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis]
> for IPv6.
> 

Also edited as suggested.

> There are some other minor editorial things like plural/singular
> forms but I assume the RFC Editor will fix those.

Thanks for the comments.


-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at