Re: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bala'zs,

Thank you for addressing my comments. I've checked the -11 version and
confirmed these have been addressed.
One very minor nit: in Section 4.6, "an not only within" should be "and not
only within".

(BTW, I've just realized there was a typo in my suggested text for section
1. I meant to say "collectively" but somehow it was changed to "correctly",
which is obviously wrong. I see this word is removed in -11, and that's
fine for me).

--
jinmei


On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:09 AM Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Tatuya,
> Many thanks for your review and proposed changes.
> They were added to v10 of the draft, uploaded recently.
> Regarding " Section 4.6 and Figure 5", the purpose is to
> show the improvement compared to RFC8939.
> We have extended the text to highlight the improvement
> and added an explicit reference to RFC8939.
> Thanks & Cheers
> Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:15 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09
>
> Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
> <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09.txt>. These comments were written
> primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors
> and
> shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
> comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any
> other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the
> INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.
>
> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as
> NO OBJECTION.
>
> This document is generally well-written, and it provides a straightforward
> solution to the stated motivation (specifying the encoding of sequence
> information in DetNet IP packets). To the extent of my limited
> understanding of DetNet and related technologies, I've not found any issue.
>
> The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text
> improvements) with the document:
>
> I have a few comments that might help improve readability of the document.
>
> - Introduction:
>
>    The DetNet Working Group has defined Packet Replication (PRF), Packet
>    Elimination (PEF) and Packet Ordering (POF) functions to provide
>    service protection by the DetNet service sub-layer [RFC8655].  The
>    PREOF service protection method relies on copies of the same packet
>
>   I'd suggest updating the first sentence to, e.g., "...functions
> (correctly
>   represented as PREOF)...", so that readers won't be puzzled about the
> acronym
>   when they read the second sentence. (abstract defines the term, but I
> think
>   it's better if the main text is more self-contained).
>
> - Section 4.1, Figure 2: what "d-CW" stands for is explained in Section
> 4.2, but not here or before. It's more reader friendly to note it when it
> first occurs.
>
> - Section 4.4: it may be more reader friendly to explain what PW stands for
> here:
>    In the first case, the different DetNet PWs use the same UDP tunnel,
>
>   perhaps it's obvious for readers with sufficient background, but this
>   document generally seems to expand many acronyms, so it would be more
>   consistent.
>
> - Section 4.6 and Figure 5: the purpose of this section and the figure is
> not clear to me. Do we need this section at all?
>
>
>