Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa,

> On 22 Dec 2019, at 15:37, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Some snall comments, personal opinions and clarifications inline.
> 
> On 22/12/2019 17:54, Tim Chown wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Many thanks for the review, comments in-line...
>>> On 22 Dec 2019, at 09:44, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>> Minor Issues:
>>> 
>>> There is a document from the RFC Editor, RFC 7322 "RFC Style guide".
>>> These guidelines should be followed, e.g. the "Requirement Language
>>> should be moved into the body of the document, normally section 1.1.
>> Will do.  It seems RFC 7322 recommends a separate section 2 for this after the Introduction.
> 
> I think there is a mismatch between RFC 7332 and what the RFC Editor do.
> If you look at RFC 8696, the latest published Standard Track RFC when I
> write this. Intyroduction is section 1 and the 2119 language is
> section 1.1.

OK, thanks, it seems the RFC ~Editor its fine with that, so we can do that.

>>> Someone (AD) should think about if the requirement language is needed in
>>> this Informational document. A "MUST" is used when outlining what
>>> draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis does. but it is not really a requirement
>>> from this document. I'm split about this and could go either way.
>> Perhaps put MUST in “”s in 4.2?
> 
> hmmmm - could be something we would want to do, but as I said I would take AD advice on this, especially if we intend to remove the 2119
> language.

Will do.  We need to decide whether to go the 2119 path or not and then be consistent.

>>> Also the new template should be used for 2119 language.
>>> 
>>> MLDv2 (or MLD) is not a well-know abbreviation and needs to be expanded.
>> Will do.  I think the RFC Editor would pick this up, but we can minimise their work :)
>>> IGMPv3 is well-known, but IGMPv3 is not. Beats me what is required,
>>> but in such cases I always recommend expanding.
> 
> Copy and paste error on my side, what I intended to say was
> 
> IGMP is well-known, but IGMPv3 is not. Beats me what is required,
> but in such cases I always recommend expanding.
> Maybe you should do "IGMP version 3 (IGMPv3).
> But I'd go with whatever you think we should do.

I’ll add more expansions on first use; some others were posted out in another review.  

>> Not sure what you mean here.
>>> "
>>> Nits:
>>> 
>>> I wonder about this in section 3.1"
>>> 
>>> "... has become widespread in common OSes for several years (Windows,
>>> MacOS, Linux/Android)..."
>>> 
>>> Should we say:
>>> 
>>> "... has become widespread in common Operating Systems for several years
>>> (Windows, MacOS, Linux/Android)..."
>> Can do.
>>> Other style issue:
>>> 
>>> Sometimes IGMPv3 / MLDv2 is used
>>> 
>>> At other places IGMP/MLD or IGMPv3/MLDv2, I think we should use one
>>> or the other.
>> In some places, like 4.2, it is generic IGMP/MLD, but there are others where we should make it more specific, like 3.2.3.
> 
> Yes, that is right, but what I meant was that sometimes you put a space
> on either side of the "/", sometimes not.

Ah, I thought you meant writing MLD or writing MLDv2, not the / and space :).  But I’ll fix up both in the revved version.

Best wishes,
Tim

> 
> /Loa
>> Tim
>>> Nits tool has two issues, these are addressed in the Shepherd Write-up,
>>> poimting out that updates
>>> 
>>> 
>>> /Loa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>>> Senior MPLS Expert
>>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>