Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt

[Pushpasis Sarkar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,

Thanks a lot for review. I am in agreement with all the points made 
below. So I will address them soon and upload the next version. Also the 
AD has also suggested that much of the Usecase sections is a duplicate 
of the same section in RFC 7777 and hence should be shortened to just 
list the usecases without detailing them and refering to RFC7777 instead.

I will take care both sets of comments and come up with a version early 
next week.

Thanks once again and Regards,
-Pushpasis

On 4/20/16 11:00 PM, Andrew G. Malis 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://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-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt
> Reviewer: Andy Malis
> Review Date: April 20, 2016
> IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2016
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
>
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be 
> resolved before publication, if the AD agrees (see below for details).
>
> Comments and minor concerns:
>
> I have no technical concerns with this draft.
>
> I have noted the two comments in the AD review of this draft, and 
> agree with them.
>
> Given the similarity in functionality to RFC 7777 and the overlap in 
> authorship, I expected the draft to be more or less identical to the 
> RFC, except for the technical differences between OSPF and ISIS. 
> However, there are parts of the RFC that are editorially better 
> (easier to read or understand) than the equivalent text in the draft, 
> starting with the title, Abstract, and Introduction. In particular, 
> the Introduction in the RFC looks like the result of cleanup by the 
> RFC Editor, but which still needs to be done in the draft. Why not 
> take advantage of the work already done by the RFC Editor? Also, the 
> Introduction in the draft doesn't include the usual reference to RFC 
> 2119 terms, which is in the RFC. The Abstract in the RFC also includes 
> more useful detail than the Abstract in the draft.
>
> As another example, these differences are also true in Section 4.1 of 
> the draft, when compared to the mostly equivalent Section 2.2.1 of the 
> RFC. For example, from an editorial standpoint there is a missing 
> "The" in the first line of the section, and there are other 
> improvements as well. I also see editorial corrections in Section 3 of 
> the RFC when compared to Section 5 in the draft.
>
> I would recommend an editorial pass where the text is compared with 
> the RFC, and when obvious, editorially improved to take advantage of 
> work already done. This will make the RFC Editor's job easier. 
> Alternatively, the AD could choose to include a note to the RFC 
> Editor, noting the similarity and asking the RFC Editor to take 
> advantage of the work that they already did for the RFC. However, 
> having this done by the document editor would take advantage of the 
> editor's knowledge of when differences between the two are deliberate.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>