[Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03: (with COMMENT)
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 21 June 2017 15:26 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EED129C15; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping@ietf.org, Andrew Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>, pals-chairs@ietf.org, agmalis@gmail.com, pals@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149805876667.15928.9879004176980498624.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:26:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/ZGCN6AGM_BA3d1OzELE2NzBxb70>
Subject: [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
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 15:26:07 -0000
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. 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. 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. 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. 2: "P2MP ATM over PSN. Requirements for ... " - extra space (nit!) 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"?
- [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-… Parag Jain (paragj)
- Re: [Pals] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-… Warren Kumari