Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.txt

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

Thanks much for your review! Please see inline.

On May 25, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

> 
> 
> Hello, 
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html 
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-06.txt 
> Reviewer: Eric Gray
> Review Date: 25-May-2012 
> Intended Status: Standard 
> 
> Summary: 
> 
> No major issues found. This document is essentially ready for publication.

Sounds good.

> 
> Comments: 
> 
> This document is mostly clearly written and easily understood.

Thanks. Is the "mostly" qualifying clearly written, easily understood, or both? :-) Where is specifically not? It seems the nits you bring up below are not clarifying meaning.

> 
> Major Issues: 
> 
> No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues: 
> ============
> 
> Because this draft defines only a new bit assignment as an update to RFC 5036, it 
> would have been cleaner to have only included the flags field as shown here:
> 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |T|R|G|   Reserved              |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Thank you for this suggestion. I feel however that furthering the packet context in which the bits reside adds much more to the clarity and removes ambiguity than this proposal. That is, the whole TLV in a figure is more clear than just 3 bits and a reserved without insertion point, and the figure exactly as from the RFC it is updating (RFC 5036) module the updated bit is more unambiguous and easier to find.

> 
> To maintain readability, the draft should still say where this field is (that it
> is part of the Common Hello Parameter TLV).  

A figure is worth how many words? :-)

> 
> In addition, since the definitions of T and R are exactly as given in RFC 5036,
> the text that currently repeats the definitions for T and R could better have 
> been written as:
> 
> "T and R
>   As specified in [RFC5036]."

Sure we could take the common denominator out, but the current form of the definition has more symmetry and rhyme while not wasting too many extra lines...

    T, Targeted Hello
       As specified in [RFC5036].

    R, Request Send Targeted Hellos
       As specified in [RFC5036].

    G, GTSM
...

> 
> This way of representing the changes makes it clearer what the actual changes
> are.  However, this is a very minor issue.

Perhaps clarity is relative. I feel that including the contextual fields graphically is more clear than describing it with words, and keeping a per-field list element seems more clear.

In any case I appreciate you taking the time to comment on this and proposing an alternate representation of those few lines.

> _________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I am curious why the text under Figure 1 explicitly includes the possibility that 
> an LSR might implement GTSM capability negotiation but not implement GTSM.  But, 
> again, this is a very minor issue.

Do you mean the text immediately underneath Figure 1, or the last paragraph of Section 2.1? If the latter, this is based on an mpls wg review (Adrian's IIRC), which separates the support for GTSM from the understanding of the G bit. While I agree with you, I think the current text is OK because it is unambiguous and complete. 

Thanks also for pointing this out. I do not expect this will be the case but covering the base.

> _________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> NITs:
> ====
> 
> In the abstract, "packets" should be "packet's."

Agreed. Changed in my working copy.

> 
> First sentence, first paragraph under Figure 1 - "meaingful" should be "meaningful."

Wow, great catch! I thought I'd run idspell on this...

> 
> Second sentence, second paragraph under Figure 1 - "but that it does not" should be
> "but that does not."

Yes. Done in my working copy.

Thanks again for this review!

-- Carlos.

> 
> --
> Eric Gray
> 
> 
>