Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 13 December 2016 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71CF129407; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 8Y2VB9GMtWZu; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:33:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C89129BB8; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id y198so128543169oia.1; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:32:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f0gOL7nBzu41tX8yGFxx23IY8zm4l4r+WsOQpRGpEjs=; b=Um4s0FYQ8I5Ze9Dbk2uwqfmKe58m88bLarQ58l2qHhVd3RrtC/TpFeMBfeDe8mAkyM HyusYjwY88iAduucWqN5wZlHUXFWp+37uquM9OzqexbDungwKyNj3g9BcDTJWnEQsagt KeX5mDELDUvCgBeZi2o4ZpkZUQsvC5iFBOp1MNYc5kUkwJ/5reML9BnQJM0kLN96BBRg lPemq39v4r7kk7qw8Zn7fQUtsfSXjo1xIiyvxIcAjvyOnsGYd3SfKlAxx8FJuNRAeId0 /QS+lFAk/E37w1l0PvSIyNum8ooojYzb36dSNfcPV8bVXO2Uo4cjMIdosu76rKmos8No qcGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f0gOL7nBzu41tX8yGFxx23IY8zm4l4r+WsOQpRGpEjs=; b=Hm7oaXkmdvmo8S2S8/DaWaOXhjqjoPXCGRFFhnVpftuLhhU4HM4LclVPiaAk/Pq23T DrEMCJOeeiFMP/JHpqm6sz76KjiswSROwidqFbQ2+o7O7e1ZgyAoqx2zfOE1JUK9VewJ QeaQQVV91OC6EftT7kVnwzkIbyQBaawRxx1DPIxA88s5srre4yueb1eIgw+qreXMkaR2 dRUPBv8Yqc03XxgkuqoQOTQgS4QD2ihJV6AlVkLoeVf/iLqsKpCsS4TKEKzjsX1zyRyT /VWX16DIuB3u9wx404Tff5DNWFl3vygMGVcQNF8Kecc2DJcjskV2lIgYURJ6UR2YLfbQ Ph9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03n+9/f9cHGYv7us9VklKv/N0IlLbfFpa7zOFzb0Xs1nV9Hzw/IQGrNp49G2XNlX2sCTSR5GCWQxDc0zA==
X-Received: by 10.157.14.28 with SMTP id c28mr50720992otc.56.1481646730784; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:32:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.44.194 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:32:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C85BF2@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <735916399E11684EAF4EB4FB376B719551C85BF2@szxema507-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:32:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWwxPVLMwro8vOjOMVXsOjBtx-tBzHTt5Y5KNbvtcW_gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d1c0a12337c05438cc3a8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Ib75INooDQ9e6i92EYYXgIkK8iw>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org>, "jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:33:13 -0000

Hi Jia,
thank you for your comments and the most expedient response. I've uploaded
-12 version.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Hejia (Jia) <hejia@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your quick updates. They have addressed all of my questions.
> I’m OK the draft moves forward.
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Jia
>
> *发件人:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
> *发送时间:* 2016年12月13日 0:29
> *收件人:* Hejia (Jia)
> *抄送:* rtg-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time.all@ietf.org;
> rtg-dir@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com; Jon
> Hudson
> *主题:* Re: [mpls] Routing directorate review of
> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
>
>
>
> Hi Jia,
>
> greatly appreciate your thorough review and thoughtful recommendations.
> Please find my answers in-line tagged GIM>>.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Hejia (Jia) <hejia@huawei.com> 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-mpls-residence-time-11.txt
>
> Reviewer: Jia He
>
> Review Date: Dec.6, 2016
>
> IETF LC End Date:
>
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
>
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has minor issues
> that should be
>
> considered prior to publication.
>
>
>
> Comments:
>
> The draft is clearly structured and easy to read.
>
> GIM>> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Major Issues:
>
> No major issues found.
>
> GIM>> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> 1) Section 3.1, the description of "Type field" of PTP Sub-TLV format
> (following Figure 3) is
>
> the same as the description of "PTPType". Shouldn't the PTP Sub-TLV
> follow RTM sub-TLV
>
> registry?
>
>
>
> "The Type field identifies PTP sub-TLV defined in the Table 19 Values of
> messageType field in
>
> [IEEE.1588.2008]."
>
>
>
> "The PTPType indicates the type of PTP packet carried in the TLV. PTPType
> is the messageType
>
> field of the PTPv2 packet whose values are defined in the Table 19
> [IEEE.1588.2008]."
>
>
>
> GIM>> Great catch, thank you. Indeed, some cut-paste error. Proposed new
> text for Type field:
>
> ""
>
> No changes for PTPType field.
>
> Another question about RTM sub-TLV registry, why only PTP 2-step is
> defined under RTM sub-TLV
>
> registry(8.3)?
>
> GIM>> You absolutely right. There's no need for two types of sub-TLV for
> PTP.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
> 1) Section 1, first paragragh, s/Generalized Associated Channel/Generic
> Associated Channel
>
> GIM>> Yes, agreed.
>
> 2) Section 3, first paragragh, s/select/selected
>
> GIM>> Yes, agreed.
>
> 3) Section 4.7, last paragraph of Page 12, s/If match have been found,
> then the calculated..../If match has been found, the calculated....
>
> GIM>> Yes, agreed.
>
> 4) Section 5, the first paragragh, ".....as described in Section 4.6 or as
> described in the second paragraph of Section 4 and in Section 4.6, ...."
> Duplication? Not sure about what " the second paragraph of Section 4"
> really indicates
>
> GIM>> Great catch, thank you. The part after "or" is old. Removed "or as
> described in the second paragraph of Section 4 and in Section 4.6".
>
> 5) Section 7, Page 18(in the middle), BC needs to be spelt out,
> s/BC/Boundary Clock
>
> GIM>>  First use of Boundary Clock term I've found is in section 4.6. I've
> added it to Terminology section and in 4.6 did s/Boundary Clock/Boundary
> Clock (BC)/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Jia
>
>
>
> *发件人:* Zhangxian (Xian)
> *发送时间:* 2016年11月22日 16:41
> *收件人:* Hejia (Jia)
> *抄送:* db3546@att.com; jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com; 'Jon Hudson'
> *主题:* Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
>
>
>
> Hey, Jia,
>
>
>
> Please would you do a routing directorate review of this draft?
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-11
>
>
>
>
>
> The draft has been submitted to the IESG for publication.  The responsible
> AD – Deborah – has requested a review from the directorate before she
> initiates the IETF last call.  It would be great if you could review the
> document and send comments by *6th December*.
>
>
>
> You can find some guidance and a review template at the following link:
>
> ​https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDirGuidance
>
>
>
> Please send your comments to the RTG Area Directors (​rtg-ads@ietf.org)
> and the draft authors, and copy the MPLS mailing list and the rtg-dir list.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you can do it, or not.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Xian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>