Re: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)

"Parag Jain (paragj)" <paragj@cisco.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paragj@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1B8127909; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 32AyFlybgnKH; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC0812EB37; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4710; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498062395; x=1499271995; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4hi8GKmwYJH5cdtq8Lji4xT4dgdgPpx8f3nC+OxCIxw=; b=BgRHalkAlfoO6Vs5BYRFM7jG7dBdCeSbtZsScdHflO4mVpH3P10qzlxh 5IG0RLbgAofPAovt4Fag+oZwkxlDSAaJZT3rX+opEOQU9KreHmZV+TdgW WSXu8u//ERmWE/gOO4vf5yjZLHFXCksZkJQSMz4ijsDZr7abY9KQSRBtd g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DRAABbnUpZ/4gNJK1TChkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNYYoENB4NlihmnVIIRLIV4AhqCWz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQYjEUUQAgEIGgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQUbihEQqhWCJotUAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBC4VigWArgnmEOwcLATOCezCCMQWJUo1Lh0UChzGBBospggiFSINuhlCVEAEfOH8LdBVbAYUvgU12AQGHOIEjAYEMAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,369,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="438768210"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Jun 2017 16:26:34 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5LGQYmo006100 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:26:34 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:26:33 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:26:33 -0400
From: "Parag Jain (paragj)" <paragj@cisco.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org>, Andrew Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>, "pals-chairs@ietf.org" <pals-chairs@ietf.org>, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHS6qK2LnaE8iXe5Ey72Qg0VUf25KIvgQSA
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:26:33 +0000
Message-ID: <596FD05D-FFAC-4F55-89D7-6022AD42FC38@cisco.com>
References: <149805876667.15928.9879004176980498624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149805876667.15928.9879004176980498624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.213.0]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <58A3206CC3C8024CAAB8FBDC932F4E39@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/108JV-DBd5MpDiEB9Ny3hJrete8>
Subject: Re: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:26:38 -0000

Hi Warren

Please see inline.


On 2017-06-21, 11:26 AM, "Warren Kumari" <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

    Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: 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-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I like the solution, but the document could do with some editing.
    
    Major:
    1: Sec 1.  Introduction
    O:  Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document at 
    present and may be included in future. P:  Multi-segment Pseudowires support is
    out of scope of this document. C: Once published as an RFC, the document
    doesn't change. Could be "... may be addressed in a future document", but I'd
    suggest leaving it out.

Will change to “Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document”.

    
    2: General
    The document has many unexpanded acronyms, e.g: ACH in "... MPLS label stack
    and IPv4 or IPv6 ACH."  In the Introduction you have: "such as P2MP ATM over
    PSN." - while PSN might count as a well known acronym, it feels like, in an
    Intro it should be less opaque - see
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for RFC known
    acronyms.
    
Will fix. Also go through the doc for any more missed acronyms.

    3: The "Controlling Echo Responses" section feels weak -- it says that  "The
    procedures ... **can** be applied to P2MP PW LSP Ping." (emphasis added) - it
    feels like this should be a SHOULD? I think better a description of the DoS
    implications (other than just pointing at RFC6425) is also important.

Will change to should. RFC6425 describes the need and procedures themselves in detail. IMO, adding details to  this document is not needed. I will refer to specific Sections of RFC6425 to make it more explicit. Let me know if that will work.
    
    Nits:
    1: The document would benefit from some serious grammar checking -- e.g:
    "... Echo Request to inform the receiver at P2MP MPLS LSP tail, of the P2MP PW
    being tested." - extra ','. "For Inclusive P-Trees, P2MP MPLS LSP label itself
    can uniquely identify the Throughout the document..." - missing 'the' - things
    like this, and confusion over plurals (especially near acronyms) makes the
    document hard to read / review.

Will fix. 
    
    2: "P2MP ATM over PSN.   Requirements for ... " - extra space (nit!)

will fix.
    
    3: Sec 8.  Security Considerations
    "The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new security
    considerations beyond that already apply to [RFC6425]." -- this sentence is
    poorly formed. Perhaps "beyond those that..."? Or "beyond those in"?
    
will fix.

Thanks
Parag