Re: [mpls] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-05

[Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

I have posted -08 version fixing the non-ASCII character.

Rgds
Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 6:17 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Apart from the non-ASCII

From: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Sent: 21 December 2022 09:37

Tom,

Thank you very much for the detailed review.
Have accepted all of them and fixed.
Pls see inline for replies

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 6:10 PM

From: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>
Sent: 04 November 2022 02:49

Tom,

You said you have further comments on the draft.
Could you pls take a look at the updated draft and let me know?

<tp>
I think that there is a lot wrong in the terminology and in the grammar so I have to work harder to extract the meaning and there is a history in this WG of producing documents that are open to misinterpretation.

I wonder what tool you are using, if any.  A period at the end of the sentence should be followed by two spaces which is the sort of thing tools get right.  Here that is often the case but is also not the case in many places.
<SH> Thanks for catching this. I have edited in many places.

s.5 The quote characters are not ASCII and display as nonsense.  Other sections are ok.
<SH> Fixed the space issue. I couldn't identify the ASCII issue. Let me know if you still see the issue in new version.

TBD appears in six places and is ambiguous.
<SH> Fixed

s.5.1 Updates 8287 and I cannot make sense of what the revised procedure should be.  I see this as a serious failing even if other reviewers found a meaning that made sense to them, but perhaps not the same meaning.
<SH> Updated to change section 4a heading. Pls see if it makes sense now.

<tp32

No it remains hard to understand and may not make sense, or perhaps in the tradition of MPLS documents makes many senses so that different implementers can find multiple incompatible senses:-(

This I-D updates RFC8287; it MUST say so both in the top lines, in the Abstract and in the body and the body MUST explain what it is being changed and s.5.1 MUST say  which bits are being replaced and SHOULD use the same conventions as RFC8287.  The latter has comment lines to give structure, the latter uses indentation to clarify the if-then-else and both are REQUIRED IMHO


The grammar is better but there are still periods without spaces, mismatch of singular and plural, missing or incorrect prepositions but it is the procedure that makes this not ready (except perhaps for its authors and the authors of RFC8287).  Harsh may be but that is my view.

Tom Petch

Capitalisation is inconsistent.  'As' for 'AS'
<SH> Fixed

You cite RFC5065 but do not use the terminology therein.  Member ASN  does not appear in it and I think where you use it is wrong - you are referring to a Member-AS and not the Number therof <SH> Fixed

s.1 talks of multiple AS and then of two AS and then a diagram with three AS.  Inconsistent.
<SH> fixed

/validate if/validate that/

/Taget/Target/

/initaited/initiated/
<SH> Fixed

The procedures /is/are/ .. not very well defined.
Needs a reference to where they are not well defined if any.
<SH> Referred RFC 9086

/carried the global AS/carries the global AS Number/ Incidentally RFC7705 does not talk of global AS.
<SH> Changed to "globally configured ASN" This is the term used in RFC 7705 in sec 3.1

s.4.1 /Type and length/Type and Length/
<SH> fixed

'In case of PeerAdj SID Local interface address corresponding to the  PeerAdj SID '
Could do with punctuation
<sH> Fixed

/apecified/specified/
<SH> Fixed

/load-balances/ load balances/

<Fixed>

Tom Petch

Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 12:29 PM
To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Hi Tom,

Thanks for the review and comments.
I have added the missing references
A section of the text was mistakenly marked as figure which I have fixed now.
I have posted a -06 version.

Let me know if you have any further comments.

BTW, authors felt "forgery" is too harsh a word for this particular mistake in the draft.

Rgds
Shraddha


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: WG Last Call and IPR Poll for for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
Sent: 27 September 2022 15:41

Dear WG,

This email starts a two-week working group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-05 [1]

<tp>

This I-D seems seriously Not Ready.

I see [RFC5065] [RFC4271] [RFC6286] and such like in the text but turning to the I-D references, nothing like them.  This has a flavour of forgery, an I-D  that has not been produced in the manner expected in the IETF.

As such, Not Ready.

I have more technical comments for when it looks more like an IETF I-D.

Tom Petch

Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>).
If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the wg chairs.

This poll runs until the 12th October 2022

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures against draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam.

Thank you,
Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)

[1]  draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-05<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AK44bXceFdFfJD0KRNFr85FAj0FVxVWpRksVmbIgcRUIeuVuvZgWwnuE0ejSlq4GUJ2e-38Gj-1FfJR1$  >

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C2VPCY9sHuweqdUirEt2w8HWrOM9_XN8Stxmol2c3W-OyJlr53R00UO5dNOs0ohQgK_ul3mSMeH0qTJY-kl5cNgA0eilrxlr$