Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Zafar,

Tnx - 1 down 36 to go!

Actually a bit more with the NITs output. Can you take a look at the 
long lines next, it should be easy edits.

The first two long lines are in this paragraph:

248	     S01.1. IF SRH.Flags.O-flag is set and local configuration permits
249	            O-flag processing THEN
250	            a. Make a copy of the packet.
251	            b. Send the copied packet, along with a timestamp
252	               to the OAM process.      ;; Ref1
253	     Ref1: An implementation SHOULD copy and record the timestamp as 
soon as
254	     possible during packet processing. Timestamp is not carried in 
the packet
255	     forwarded to the next hop.

Line 253 has four characters "n as" outside the allowed 72 characters
Line 254 has the word "packet" outside the allowed 72 characters

This is inside the figure and I think that you can left shift the
enire figure, otherwise I don't see a problem with introducing line
breaks.

In figure 4:

639	     > traceroute srv6 B:4:C52 via segment-list B:2:C31

641	     Tracing the route to SID function B:4:C52
642	      1  2001:DB8:1:2:21 0.512 msec 0.425 msec 0.374 msec
643	         SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=2)
644	      2  2001:DB8:2:3:31 0.721 msec 0.810 msec 0.795 msec
645	         SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=1)
646	      3  2001:DB8:3:4::41 0.921 msec 0.816 msec 0.759 msec
647	         SRH: (B:4:C52, B:4:OTP, B:2:C31; SL=1)

649	        Figure 4 A sample output for hop-by-hop traceroute to a SID 
function

Line 649 has "tion" of "SID function" (fig numbring) outside the allowed
72 characters, again should be easy to left shif or introduce line
breaks.

The reason I want to address this first is that it is easy, but also
a show stopper.

And last, thugh I hate to add late comments - abbreviations, I have not
gone through the entire document to look for unexpanded abbreviations,
but there is at least one "NPU". Which I read as Network Processing Unit,
what confuses me is that it is not in the RFC Editors abbreviation list
at all. I think there is an action point for the wg chairs to have it
introduced, and for the authros to expand, as well as going through the
document an d make sure that everthing that should be expanded is.

/Loa

On 22/01/2020 13:15, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Hi Loa,
> 
> Many thanks for your follow-up.
> 
> Based on your feedback, we have updated the version in the GitHub.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards … Zafar
> 
> *From: *Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:59 PM
> *To: *"Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>, Brian E Carpenter 
> <[e-mail]>, Ole Troan <[e-mail]>, 6man WG 
> <[e-mail]>, SPRING WG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *6man Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for 
> <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
> 
> Zafar,
> 
> Thanks for addressing this. However one thing remains. The text is now:
> 
> "There MAY be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID."
> 
> I don't think there is a need for requirement language in that sentence,
> 
> I read it as straightforward English:
> 
> "There may be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID."
> 
> Would do very well.
> 
> Can you explain the need for requirement language?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 22/01/2020 01:55, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> 
>     Hi Brian,
> 
>     Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
> 
>     The working copy of the new version in the repository addresses your/
> 
>     Loa’s comment highlighted in your email.
> 
>     https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Regards … Zafar
> 
>     *From: *spring <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter
> 
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>     *Organization: *University of Auckland
> 
>     *Date: *Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:57 PM
> 
>     *To: *Loa Andersson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ole Troan
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 6man
> 
>     WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, SPRING WG
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>     *Cc: *6man Chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>     *Subject: *Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for
> 
>     <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>
> 
>     To be clear about one of the points in the review, MAY NOT is not
> 
>     allowed by RFC2119 because it is totally ambiguous in English (since it
> 
>     can mean either "must not" or "might not"). In any case the phrase "MAY
> 
>     or MAY NOT" is not of any normative value. It presumably simply means
> 
>     "MAY" in all cases in this draft.
> 
>     Regards
> 
>           Brian
> 
>     On 20-Jan-20 20:54, Loa Andersson wrote:
> 
>           WG,
> 
>           I have reviewed the entire document.
> 
>           First, I'm not an IPv6 expert.
> 
>           As far as I can see the sued on
> 
>           I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn
>     the tools,
> 
>           but so far I have failed.
> 
>           I have instead done what I use to do, use the review tool with
>     Word.
> 
>           Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save
>     the result
> 
>           as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as
>     refrences to a
> 
>           list at the end of the document. But you can't get everything.
> 
>           /Loa
> 
>           PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot and in
>     itself are
> 
>           so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and
>     asking them
> 
>           to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting
>     the wglc?
> 
>           idnits 2.16.02
> 
>           /tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt:
> 
>                Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF
>     Trust (see
> 
>     https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
> 
>          
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                   No issues found here.
> 
>                Checking nits according to
> 
>     https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
> 
>          
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                   No issues found here.
> 
>                Checking nits according to
>     https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
> 
>          
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the
>     document, the
> 
>           longest one
> 
>                   being 6 characters in excess of 72.
> 
>                == There are 5 instances of lines with
>     non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
> 
>           addresses
> 
>                   in the document.  If these are example addresses, they
> 
>           should be
> 
>           changed.
> 
>                Miscellaneous warnings:
> 
>          
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors
>     Copyright Line
> 
>           does not
> 
>                   match the current year
> 
>                -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY
>     NOT'
> 
>           is not
> 
>                   defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements
> 
>           expression, it
> 
>                   should be rewritten using one of the combinations
>     defined in
> 
>           RFC 2119;
> 
>                   otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.
> 
>                == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119
> 
>           requirements
> 
>           text,
> 
>                   is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be
>     used.  Consider
> 
>           using 'MUST
> 
>                   NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
> 
>                   Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
> 
>                   To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo request
> 
>           message is
> 
>                   generated by the initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP
>     SID in the
> 
>                   segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the
>     target SID.
> 
>           There MAY
> 
>                   or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the END.OP/
> 
>           END.OTP SID.
> 
>                == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119
> 
>           requirements
> 
>           text,
> 
>                   is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be
>     used.  Consider
> 
>           using 'MUST
> 
>                   NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
> 
>                   Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
> 
>                   To traceroute a target SID a probe message is
>     generated by the
> 
>                   initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the
>     segment-list of
> 
>           the SRH
> 
>                   immediately preceding the target SID.  There MAY or
>     MAY NOT be
> 
>           additional
> 
>                   segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
> 
>                -- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days in the
> 
>           past.  Is this
> 
>                   intentional?
> 
>                Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
> 
>          
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                   (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using
>     normative
> 
>           references
> 
>                   to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> 
>                == Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line 190, but not
> 
>           defined
> 
>                -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on
>     line 191
> 
>                -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on
>     line 191
> 
>                -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on
>     line 192
> 
>                == Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on line 230, but
> 
>           not defined
> 
>                == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is
> 
>           mentioned on line
> 
>                   241, but not defined
> 
>                == Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line 701, but
> 
>           not defined
> 
>                == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line
>     660, but not
> 
>           defined
> 
>                == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 823, but no
> 
>           explicit
> 
>                   reference was found in the text
> 
>                == Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line 843, but no
> 
>           explicit
> 
>                   reference was found in the text
> 
>                == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
> 
>                   draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
> 
>                   Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 5
> 
>           comments
> 
>           (--).
> 
>                   Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed
> 
>           information
> 
>           about
> 
>                   the items above.
> 
>           On 05/12/2019 04:53, Ole Troan wrote:
> 
>               Hello,
> 
>                    As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this
> 
>               message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
> 
>               advancing:
> 
>                    Title    : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
> 
>               (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
> 
>                    Author   : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D.
>     Voyer, M.
> 
>               Chen
> 
>                    Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02
> 
>                    Pages    : 23
> 
>                    Date     : 2019-11-20
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
> 
>               as a Proposed Standard.
> 
>               Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing
> 
>               this document should be directed to the mailing list.
> 
>               Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last
>     call
> 
>               will end on the 18th of December 2019.
> 
>               To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as
> 
>               early as possible, we would require at least
> 
>               two reviewers to do a complete review of the document.  Please
> 
>               let the chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer.
> 
>               The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group,
> 
>               with discussion directed to the ipv6 list.
> 
>               Thanks,
> 
>               Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs
> 
>              
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>               IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> 
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>               Administrative Requests:
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> 
>              
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>          
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>           IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> 
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>           Administrative Requests:
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> 
>          
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     _______________________________________________
> 
>     spring mailing list
> 
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> -- 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> Senior MPLS Expert
> 
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]