Re: [Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-endpoint-fast-protection-04: (with COMMENT)

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Yimin, authors,

This message also made me read that paragraph and I have a couple additional editorial comments and suggestions for your consideration:


1. I think it would be very useful to explicitly call out S-BFD on this.

OLD:

   A PLR
   MUST be able to detect a failure by using a rapid mechanism, such as
   physical layer failure detection, Bidirectional Failure Detection
   (BFD) [RFC5880], etc.  In anticipation of the failure, the PLR MUST


NEW:

   A PLR
   MUST be able to detect a failure by using a rapid mechanism, such as
   physical layer failure detection, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
   (BFD) [RFC 5880], Seamless BFD (S-BFD) [RFC 7880], and others.
   In anticipation of the failure, the PLR MUST


2. Similarly, “VCCV” is mentioned without expanding the acronym or explaining what it is:

OLD:

      Possible triggers of
      global repair include PW status notification, VCCV, BFD, end-to-

NEW:

      Possible triggers of
      global repair include PW status notification, the Pseudowire Virtual
      Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC 5085] [RFC 5885],
      BFD, end-to-


Thanks,

—
Carlos Pignataro, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

“Sometimes I use big words that I do not fully understand, to make myself sound more photosynthesis."

On Dec 16, 2016, at 1:11 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear Authors, Benoit, et. al,
I've just noticed, from Benoit comment to p.10 of the document, that BFD, defined in RFC 5880, being mistakenly expanded as Bidirectional Failure Detection while it is Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-endpoint-fast-protection-04: 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-endpoint-fast-protection/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial nits (From Sue Hares, part of her OPS-DIR review)

1.       Page 10  - style makes difficult reading of sentence  (very
minor nit).

OLD /A PLR MUST Be able to detect a failure by using a rapid mechanism,
such as physical layer failure detection, Bidirectional failure detection
(BFD) [RFC5880], etc. /

NEW /A PLR MUST Be able to detect a failure by using a rapid mechanism,
such as physical layer failure detection, Bidirectional failure detection
(BFD) [RFC5880], and others/

2.       Page 32 – difficult to parse sentence

      Old/For Encoding type, 1 is defined for PWid FEC element format,
and 2 is defined for the Generalized PWid FEC Element format [RFC4447]./

      New/ For type encoding type, the following two values are defined
within this document:

-          Type 1 for PWid FEC element format (see section 6.4.1.), and

-          Type 2 for Generalized PWid FEC Element format [RFC4447


_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals