Re: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 04 August 2023 13:53 UTC
Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB026C169521; Fri, 4 Aug 2023 06:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzxLJZh9wv3w; Fri, 4 Aug 2023 06:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9A79C14CEF9; Fri, 4 Aug 2023 06:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-63cf8754d95so12079696d6.1; Fri, 04 Aug 2023 06:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1691157234; x=1691762034; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EsRUu3v/t8/Su6tAPnJOak6qgp0XnmJ74BbBlfWhzXE=; b=kbhGGTJEUgws0PuSY8IXMPr4H66Bh97Wp/Vz8VudLXGgpirdmoHHql0I5sDo14iRPm K5fYU0wXE7vfFBsdLbx4az4WIouuHEaf3O3tMAM44nFUwsgMEZM6gCBHbvkx7zxAx5Ov nTgFwh5XZqxexMUSuRKPCZZSFBI61FatrofLtVky9VZq4PKyXeQgcQj5W4ObeO8oKfSm 0YkyczMVIrpjzsc416QeoIXd/0ZXFYMms6otHaKs2t72iQY5PM3GbNZafOBb6x80Lznf moGX3S61u4eHaU9WhGesvwZc8Kfm0V1O2+Dxk1vaNuVHG+G/yGzGyctbdkFNA3HRE3Np JaXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691157234; x=1691762034; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=EsRUu3v/t8/Su6tAPnJOak6qgp0XnmJ74BbBlfWhzXE=; b=hqRzg6PUhOvfhgU9UrVDguzVCYsQnQc5wH2dDrcxNxzruv03JeJZhZETeJSayzPfvX WHHKTKkuSydSX2912hemXV0otGlQhGYjQ8mT366B0k2iAUOQrdf7J0IV0KRBrVA6H4IH awaId92Zd8+K+Do6xTr7HvhTRCqTkcsXZC3uhkXNGbq1IgtR3XsDqL5Bqz6nhx4/CQ1G XZNbaSBZ1xA5/MYfgkYNNpArx4TnVrcTs75xyJdYqfKwArrWQ1pFZwpAUDukzRTkhHWP 4adRQmQs63pjOheDVZybfaUHV+2xT4UOefU4oyiAiiXeNSzQgLLADtUgdJrGhxz6Om4G yqjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyUs+aXVeAW5fOJOF6ReqtOk0yYZpLCYR/D3WcMxXjU3xcO1/jQ NwtVB5GPskCDSxHiAbuGjSQapWMooYSIMEigaA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGm5MOe7i4Qv/ccQWI8jTB8BuLKwOREnw/bHcm7bnKrKBoWjrMGOpxKXRC9gd5H8yQbwO+riDv6P494oYRsbuc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2f01:b0:63d:4631:8cfb with SMTP id od1-20020a0562142f0100b0063d46318cfbmr1718547qvb.6.1691157233817; Fri, 04 Aug 2023 06:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <169114486923.39761.12387445086900702399@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <169114486923.39761.12387445086900702399@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 09:53:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6dfHW9dm94zzjwQUdfHXmaVYMR1pkc5X0_JbWaUL7rVdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e5c480602193ae5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/2-QFwnH9ZXxegTHVWsE7Ju0IurA>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 13:53:58 -0000
Thank you Lars for the review. We have posted a revised draft that addresses your comments: URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-18.txt Html: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-18.html Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-18 Please let us know if you have further review comments. Thanks, Rakesh On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 6:28 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17: Discuss > > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17 > > CC @larseggert > > Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/crZp5rrOYaDNMcoM95b5pFQBReo > ). > > ## Discuss > > Two issues that I think will be quick to fix: > > ### Section 4, paragraph 12 > ``` > other Return Path TLVs if present. A Session-Reflector that supports > this TLV MUST reply using the Return Path received in the Session- > Sender test packet, if possible. > ``` > "MUST ... if possible" is an odd construction. Please rephrase and > clarify the requirements level. > > ### Section 4.1.3, paragraph 16 > ``` > The SRv6 Segment List contains a list of 128-bit IPv6 addresses > representing the SRv6 SIDs. Length of the Sub-TLV modulo MUST be 0. > ``` > Modulo *what*? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ## Nits > > All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may > choose to > address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by > automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so > there > will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what > you > did with these suggestions. > > ### Outdated references > > Document references `draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-01`, but `-03` is the > latest > available revision. > > ### Grammar/style > > #### Section 3, paragraph 4 > ``` > s field in octets. The length is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for > I > ^^^^^ > ``` > Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable. > > #### Section 3, paragraph 4 > ``` > is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for IPv6 address. The Destination > ^^^^^ > ``` > Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable. > > #### Section 4.1, paragraph 4 > ``` > bit): Reply Request Flag at bit 31 (least significant bit) is defined as > fol > ^^^^^ > ``` > A determiner may be missing. > > #### Section 4.1.2, paragraph 3 > ``` > s field in octets. The length is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for > I > ^^^^^ > ``` > Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable. > > #### Section 4.1.2, paragraph 3 > ``` > h is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for IPv6 address. 4.1.3. Return > Se > ^^^^^ > ``` > Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable. > > #### Section 4.1.3, paragraph 14 > ``` > re two possible combinations for such a interoperability use case: - STAMP > S > ^ > ``` > Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, > e.g. > "an article", "an hour". > > #### Section 6, paragraph 4 > ``` > e allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure as > specifie > ^^^^ > ``` > It seems that a comma is missing. (Also elsewhere.) > > #### Section 8.1, paragraph 3 > ``` > flow-label, etc. from the packet. Hence for IPv4, for example, different > va > ^^^^^ > ``` > A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Hence". > > ## Notes > > This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use > the > [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into > individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. > > [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md > [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments > [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > ippm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >
- [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-s… Lars Eggert via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ip… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ip… Lars Eggert