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

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

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]