Re: [manet] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12.txt

[Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa, 

Thanks a lot for the review. 

I don’t know why the nits tool says

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 469

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 469

because there is no ‘1’/‘2’ on line 469 of the draft. May be the RFC editor could tell us what’s the problem. 

And we will fix the rest of the issues that you raised in the next revision. 

best

Jiazi

> On 11 May 2017, at 10:14, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12.txt
> Reviewer: Loa Andersson
> Review Date: 2017-05-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-11 (?)
> Intended Status: Experimental
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> The draft is well written and readable also for someone that does
> not read manet-draft that often.
> 
> Major Issues:
> "No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> "No minor issues found."
> 
> Nits:
> 
> I've looked at the the GenArt review by Peter Yee and the Intdir
> review by Zhen Cao and largely agree with their comments.
> 
> In addition: The nits tool picks on something that looks like
> references on line 469 ( [1] and [2] ) but is not. Don't think you'll
> need to fix that, the RFC Editor will fix if necessary.
> 
> I'd like to have the Abstract fleshed out a bit, some more context
> given. If you are new to the area and the draft it is very hard to
> find the expected useful info in the abstract.
> 
> You use "TC message" already in section 4, but TC (Traffic Control)
> is not expanded until section 6, should be done the first time it is
> used.
> 
> The abbreviation "SR" is used (often as part of parameter names), but
> never really expanded, though one can find the expansion kind of
> explained at some places. Could be made clearer.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet