IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.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 D38EE130DC6; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 C7OlPLNlSVIo; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 422921293FB; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 51399B8E51A23; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:58:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:58:51 +0100
Received: from DGGEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.6]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:58:47 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath
Thread-Index: AdQ2WsVHouPgIvLQQhaWnERr5PlvwAqE/3rQ
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:58:47 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2926BAD96@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8883D9E05@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8883D9E05@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.194.201]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2926BAD96dggeml510mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/s_z7RoBWPaFo8M9XWIBH4xBKO58>
Subject: Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 07:58:59 -0000

Hi Deborah,

Sorry for the delayed response!

Thanks for your detailed review and the comments, we will try to improve the draft according to your suggestion.

Best regards,
Mach

From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:db3546@att.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:58 AM
To: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath

Hi Authors,

I've reviewed your draft before starting IETF Last Call:

-          my major concern is the readability - grammar, sentence clarity. I've done a mark up of the document which I will send to the authors with my suggestions. I think reviewers in the other areas will have a difficult time if we don't improve it.
-          The template for requirements language now includes reference to RFC8174. I've noted it in the mark up.
-          I noted some gaps on "what happens if not supported" that need to be clarified.

Thanks!
Deborah

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email