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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Jiazi

Inline please

On 2017-05-11 16:10, Jiazi Yi wrote:
> 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

line 469 is (i've marked the '1' and '2'

469	   (PT_metric, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n])
                                  ~~~            ~~~

My question is really not to the authors, I think your text is fine.
RFC Editor might escape the '[' and ']', but I don't really understand
why the nits tool does not have a warning for the '[n]' on the same
line. I will bring this up witht he tools people.

/Loa

>
>
> 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] <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> manet mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]