Re: [Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Stewart,

Some more sentences with your feedback would improve the draft IMO.

Regards, B.
>
>
> On 31/08/2017 11:48, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-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/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Here is Sarah's OPS DIR review. Her Why (Do I care?) comment 
>> resonates with me:
>> I could not find the information.
>>
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational 
>> directorate's ongoing
>> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
>> These comments
>> were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of 
>> the IETF
>> drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included 
>> in AD
>> reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should 
>> treat
>> these comments just like any other last call comments.
>>
>>          I think the document is almost ready to go. I don't have 
>> technical
>>          issue with the content, but I think the document reads in 
>> parts like
>>          several authors cut/paste/contributed, and the document 
>> doesn't flow
>>          well in spots. Perhaps this is a personal choice, but I 
>> believe that
>>          documents that read with some amount of approachability with 
>> respect to
>>          all interested readers, and not just hard core
>>          whatever-the-protocol-is-fanatics, benefits our community 
>> for the
>>          better. Last, maybe it's the product manager in me, and not the
>>          development engineer, but why do I care?
>
> Previously the only way to set up a p2mp PW was static configuration. 
> This defines how to do
> the setup via LDP which is the normal signalling protocol used for PWs.
>
>>          Is this just to add LDP as
>>          another mechanism for establishing the PW?
>
> It is the first signalled method for a true P2MP PW.
>
>> Is there some deficit that's
>>          being addressed by LDP that existing mechanisms don't solve?
>
> Yes, this is a signalled method.
>
>> This isn't
>>          addressed in a way that resonates in the document, for me.
>
>> Last, while
>>          super picky, the acronym "PSN" was used in the abstract 
>> before being
>>          properly introduced. This was mostly made more noticeable by 
>> the fact
>>          that the rest of the draft does a fantastic job of 
>> introducing the
>>          terms before using the acronym.
>
> That is easily fixed and the RFC Editor would normally do it 
> automatically. For the reader
> this would not normally be their first text on the subject and so they 
> would normally
> already be familiar with the term.
>
> Best regards
>
> Stewart
>
>>
>>
>
> .
>