Re: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12
Jiazi Yi <ietf@jiaziyi.com> Tue, 09 May 2017 22:54 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
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 78C3612EAE2; Tue, 9 May 2017 15:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=jiaziyi.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 8oB-ipFGCeDN; Tue, 9 May 2017 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sender-of-o52.zoho.com (sender-of-o52.zoho.com [135.84.80.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21076124B0A; Tue, 9 May 2017 15:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1494370448; s=jiazi; d=jiaziyi.com; i=ietf@jiaziyi.com; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; l=1359; bh=Bzue9mViNgdVB7Uz9WuBYlUb1OYFB5imytMOYWW0LZQ=; b=g57wIac15mW3hxxkQU3nTfe7YVFrLEtQJNnpEwu40cAaZn6lPM/p6FSgAugMJGg/ XL6Iw2vY9Tqi723KjaXF1jE/XrZ7IqYX7Ud4f4DQXyXqY5me5CCGorLTbxErnihcGyA dJWZONCmwXnGwldbip+5gGQ8GbcVsEUzKz1LltkI=
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (230.248.86.88.rdns.comcable.net [88.86.248.230]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 149437044828451.717761972135236; Tue, 9 May 2017 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jiazi Yi <ietf@jiaziyi.com>
In-Reply-To: <149431964538.10555.11264594833770083998@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 00:54:06 +0200
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <11D61838-1EE5-475B-BCBA-B4DC1D6C5BB4@jiaziyi.com>
References: <149431964538.10555.11264594833770083998@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-ZohoMailClient: External
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/tPc27CnrMhcmbD5yUKISqwtWz5g>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 09 May 2017 22:54:17 -0000
Dear Zhen, Thanks very much for your review. We will update the draft based on the comments and submit a new revision. best Jiazi > On 9 May 2017, at 10:47, Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Zhen Cao > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area > Directors. Document editors and shepherds 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 of the INT directorate, see > <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>. > > I believe this document is ready to publish almost as it is. > > One issue I found during my review lies in Sec. 8.4 where IPv4 loose > source routing being discussed. To avoid unnecessary fragmentation, I > am suggesting the following wording change: > > S/ If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS > (Section 5), only the "key" routers in the path are kept... > / If the length of the path (n) is greater than MAX_SRC_HOPS > (Section 5), or the adding of source routing header exceeds the > path MTU, > only the "key" routers in the path are kept... > > Cheers, > Zhen > > >