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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 
>> 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.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

/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]