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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben, et.al,
we've published the new version of the draft. It includes changes to
address your comments and many others. Hope I haven't missed any.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>