Re: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 27 September 2015 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AFB1B2B93; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oVsspKyFDava; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB64B1B2B94; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06D524094E; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [88.131.67.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83C71240811; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, mahoney@nostrum.com, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <CAH==cJx9_U+7T2tGw3Zi99K+hBBYLnPztZK2UXnimBG2nKWwEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <5608181D.3050600@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:23:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH==cJx9_U+7T2tGw3Zi99K+hBBYLnPztZK2UXnimBG2nKWwEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/91xqgoLingMqSUjBADoGQJVxZyE>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:24:01 -0000

Yes, I think adding that would improve readability.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/26/15 9:04 PM, Lizhong Jin wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> Sorry for the late reply, I missed this email.
> Thanks for the second round review. You are right, the stack will grows
> downward, but only with the relay nodes, not all nodes along the LSP.
> The mechanism is described in section 4.2 paragraph 4.
> Do you agree if I add the following:
> This stack grows downward, with relay node addresses further along the
> LSP appearing lower down in the stack. Please refer to section 4.2 for
> the relay node discovery mechanism.
>
> Regards
> Lizhong
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Message: 1
>     Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:35:34 -0400
>     From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>>
>     To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com
>     <mailto:mahoney@nostrum.com>>, General Area Review Team
>              <gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>,
>     "mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org
>     <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
>     Subject: [mpls] [Gen-art] Review:
>              draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
>     Message-ID: <55FB6A66.5050709@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:55FB6A66.5050709@joelhalpern.com>>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
>     I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>     Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>     by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>     like any other last call comments.
>
>     For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
>     <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
>     Document: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10
>           Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
>     Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>     Review Date: 17-September-2015
>     IETF LC End Date: 25-Sept-2015
>     IESG Telechat date: N/A
>
>     Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
>
>     Major issues: none
>
>     Minor issues:
>           In this document, the address stack grows downward.  While
>     reasonable, I think that in the absence of warning of this, readers are
>     likely to be confused when they read the detailed procedures.  I think
>     the document would be helped by adding the sentence:
>           "This stack grows downward, with addresses further along the LSP
>     appearing lower down in the stack."
>          This could appear right after:
>           "-  Stack of Relayed Addresses: a list of relay node addresses."
>     in section 3.2.
>
>     Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------
>