Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgRir review requested: draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10.txt (Correcting alias)

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Fri, 08 November 2019 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7C3120845; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:16:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7y_YayQSo0ZH; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:16:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB36012013B; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:16:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2641; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1573233400; x=1574443000; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NmUXHuvHoDgR8jWW9Eyh1jGyn4B9LpHGccChSC6/gJ8=; b=GBET5tBPKlebB6n1sfhitZ/qr5pnoEob0QpS9/PJYTHT9frb4zw4RvrX vfYa/Hb8LcFviO7VPTk28Ql7oqIqGwRyVC2D13QQS+wrEOTEYtpHaM7xa smqQx/YQQ9x3utS2osqNmAvqQAAKOfr/C2K844B0O5PF2RVOBTfqgwudt 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,282,1569283200"; d="scan'208";a="18974348"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 Nov 2019 17:16:37 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xA8HGau9021797; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 17:16:37 GMT
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>, LucAndré Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse@ietf.org>
References: <894CA9C8-19D9-4C97-A8FE-9AD9D294EFC2@cisco.com>
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <0f2a0107-1b31-b1f0-086a-a37df78c770c@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:16:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <894CA9C8-19D9-4C97-A8FE-9AD9D294EFC2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.60.140.52, ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/XTI8nQnlMZzEC880R_M5bOfT0wY>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgRir review requested: draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10.txt (Correcting alias)
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 17:16:42 -0000

Hi Stuart,

thanks for the review.

I will address your comments in a next re-spin of the draft.

thanks,
Peter

On 08/11/2019 17:40, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Thanks Stewart for the review!
> 
> I did a search on MPLS-TE RFCs and it is, in fact, hyphenated in most 
> instances. I’m sure the authors will incorporate your comments in the 
> next revision.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Acee
> 
> *From: *rtg-dir <rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Stewart Bryant 
> <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 1:07 PM
> *To: *"rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, 
> "draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.all" 
> <draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse.all@ietf.all>, "Yemin (Amy)" 
> <amy.yemin@huawei.com>, LucAndré Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>, 
> Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Subject: *[RTG-DIR] RtgRir review requested: 
> draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10.txt
> 
> 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://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir> 
> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir%3E> ​ 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> 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-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10.txt
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> 
> Review Date: 2019-10-07
> 
> IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
> 
> Intended Status: Standard Track
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I apologies for the delay.
> 
> I found version 10 to be well written.
> 
> WRT Daniele’s question of whether this is needed. I think the text in 
> the introduction substantiates a need and I am inclined to support 
> publication.
> 
> Major issues: none
> 
> Minor issues: none
> 
> Editorials:
> 
> (e.g., SRTE,
> 
>     LFA)
> 
> SB> The terms SRTE and LFA need to be expanded in the abstract.
> 
> OSPFv3 when MPLS TE and GMPLS are not deployed or are deployed in
> 
> SB> Should be MPLS-TE (well know term)
> 
> - Stewart
>