[mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4647129412; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:16:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148841019992.7040.2698428179443970594.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:16:39 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/3nibQIpNy7DcKeF67B1fBftle4o>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 23:16:40 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no objection, but do have some a few minor comments:

Substantive:

-2.1, 4th paragraph from end: Can you offer guidance on what might
constitute a reasonably bound wait time?\

-2.1, 2nd paragraph from end: "... MUST NOT do both": What's the scope of
that MUST NOT? Does it mean MUST NOT ever? NUST NOT in the same
message?

Editorial:
- Abstract: The last paragraph is a single, long sentence. Please
consider breaking it into simpler sentences.

- 2.1, paragraph 9: "This bit, once it is set by a two-
   step mode device, MUST stay set accordingly": Can that MUST be stated
in process terms? That is, <actors>  MUST NOT unset this bit..."

-2.1, paragraph 11:  "Without loss of generality should note
   that handling of Sync event messages..." : I don't follow the
sentence; are words missing and/or out of order?
-- "Following outlines handling of PTP Sync event message by the two-step
RTM node.": I think there's a missing "the" at the start. It's absence
completely changes the meaning of "following outlines"-- as written it
seem like the verb is "following", but I think you mean it to be
"outlines".
-- I have trouble matching some pronouns to their antecedents in the rest
of the paragraph.