Re: [RTG-DIR] [Last-Call] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-06

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Greg for handling my comments!

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:06 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
> thank you for your prompt reply, and my apologies for the confusion my
> sloppy response caused. A couple of follow-up notes tagged GIM3>> below.
> I've attached the updated working version of the draft.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 9:16 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 5:20 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dhruv,
>>> thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. I've added more notes below
>>> tagged GIM2>>. Attached, please find the updated working version of the
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:41 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> HI Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for taking my comments into consideration.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ## Major
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - It would be incorrect to put RFC 7056 (which is being made
>>>>>> historic) in the
>>>>>> "updates:" list at the top of the page. Note that, one needs to
>>>>>> follow the
>>>>>> "status-change" document process to mark the RFC as historic which
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> triggered by the AD. The job of this I-D is to articulate the reasons
>>>>>> why the
>>>>>> RFC7506 should be made historic. Update section 1 and section 3
>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>> Section 3 could list or refer to existing sections on why RFC 7506
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> historic.
>>>>>>
>>>>> GIM>> Thank you for pointing this out. Updated the header
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dhruv: I think this text in (1) abstract - "It reclassifies RFC 7506
>>>> as Historic..." and this text in (2) introduction "...and reclassifies
>>>> RFC 7506 [RFC7506] as Historic." and section 3 (3) "This document reclassifies
>>>> RFC 7506 [RFC7506] as Historic." are incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> It should stay instead that "this document explains why RFC 7560 has
>>>> been reclassified as Historic" in all places. I would also suggest to
>>>> update section 3 accordingly
>>>>
>>> GIM2>> Thank you for explaining the process to me. As I understand it,
>>> reclassifying RFC 7506 will take separate efforts and time. Hence my
>>> question, "Would it be more acceptable to state, "This document explains
>>> why RFC 7506 should be reclassified as Historic"?
>>>
>>
>> Dhruv: Yes! Thanks!
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have my doubts about one more instance -
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8029#section-4.3
>>>>
>>>> The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value 69
>>>>> [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>>>>
>>>> GIM2>> Thank you pointing this text to me. Would the following text
>>> address your concern:
>>> NEW TEXT:
>>>    Furthermore, this specidication updates Section 4.3 of [RFC8029] as
>>>    follows:
>>>
>>>    OLD:
>>>
>>>    The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
>>>    69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>>>
>>>    NEW:
>>>
>>>    The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value 69
>>>    [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>>>
>>>    END
>>>
>>
>> Dhruv: Did you forget to update the text in NEW? Except for a missing
>> space after [RFC2113] there seems to be no difference between OLD and NEW!
>>
> GIM3>> Indeed. It is like this:
>
>
>    Furthermore, this specification updates Section 4.3 of [RFC8029] as
>    follows:
>
>    OLD:
>
>    The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
>    69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
>
>    NEW:
>
>    The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
>    69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST NOT be set in the IP header.
>
>    END
>
> WDYT?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Hope you did a check on other instances of "alert" in RFC 8029.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Dhruv: I hope you did that as it would be good to get you as an expert to
>> review it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>>>
>>>> In one edit in Section 4, where you list the OLD text from RFC 8029, do
>>>> not add a reference to RFC 1122 in OLD text as this should be as listed in
>>>> RFC 8029. It is good that you added reference in the NEW text!
>>>>
>>>>
>> Dhruv: When we quote the OLD text from RFC 8029, it should be verbatim.
>> By adding reference RFC 1122 [RFC1122] is making a change. Please remove
>> that in OLD text, and you can add it in NEW text.
>>
> GIM3>> Now I got it!
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>> Dhruv
>>>>
>>>