[Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (with COMMENT)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 14:22 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 5A2FC1292AE; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, pals-chairs@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com, pals@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149183417336.3169.4090650965570837178.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:22:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/r8aphixmkUHu8F7QKmvjbkaVPvA>
Subject: [Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-04: (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: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:22:53 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-status-reduction-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-status-reduction/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As mentioned by Jürgen in his OPS-DIR review: Section 1.2 is not really about terminology but instead it basically expands acronyms. The section does not define any terms or does it make it clear where terms are defined. A reader who does not know T-PE will not be pointed to a document that defines 'Terminating Provider Edge Node of MS-PW'. I usally find terminology sections more useful if they say where definitions of terms get be found. Section 3: s/the the/the/ Section 4: What is the 'Version' field in the message format? Section 4: There is an 8-bit field marked U C Flags and I _assume_ the U and C bits are the 'first' two bits and the 'remaining bits are the flags managed by IANA. Perhaps make this clearer, e.g.: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Last Received Seq Number | Message Type |U|C| Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Or alternatively simply name the entire 8-bit flags field like you do in the text where you refer to Message Flags and then explain in the text under the 'Message Flags' that the first two bits have a fixed meaning. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Last Received Seq Number | Message Type | Message Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This option carries less information but then you use 'Message Flags' in several places and you also request an IANA registry for Message Flags where the U and C bit are allocated. Looking at the IANA text, it says 'bit position' 0 and 1. Not sure this is clear enough, you seem to number bits in the order 0, 1, 2, ... It turns out we have several slightly different labels further down in the document for this flags field throughout the document - this makes searching in the text difficult, please use a single consistent name for this message field. Section 8.2 says values 1 and 2 are defined in this document but then it seems value 3 is also allocated, no? Subsections of section 8 switches several times between decimal and hexadecimal numbers. Perhaps things get clearer if a single number system (e.g., hexadecimal) is used when talking about a specific registry. Numbers like 134,217,728 look somewhat confusing, 0x8000000 seems simpler.
- [Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Pals] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Luca Martini