[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 20 April 2016 17:30 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.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 4631F12E900; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 dVFbyj75A9-a; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 195C212E710; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id x201so47184549oif.3; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HbWKFQihcKSI13T7EOC2/0K9wXDzJc2+NDsbwWua39k=; b=0sERDOAjGWT507ExZj8CaUsK5wF4uteM5Jmn7YaQrEAY74Vtdi4YD0gx88+VkgrvIC PuMNeLHkKaQies04wfqrgggGHILfKCRkUx7W3lI2GKjciIlPIUP1Ym1t6gaEIvi0/3G1 rXUFdISr2Je3aftkk2+39zekHzk9deD6iGd2TtsbkCJmREnYJAJcptFNHKaLfsUgsZP3 8lzXbopWtLrJ/aOTGBwNON4n1LbENytpTeIT/I3xFPQHogfS8TaSSswEFVAt/3/0UsaE uGdLIPJ6aCU49dgkCZNv0BF88ItbbOoguFt2cUM5RH/+owTtHwfXDI22RsLtZcvsctED x99g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HbWKFQihcKSI13T7EOC2/0K9wXDzJc2+NDsbwWua39k=; b=ZZey7D66naSL60oQoRxbzALvBk6c/OUMb0ZycQO6i7YiFBqr3rA5zdXm6h3iLdh3Sa fM6DbtbqHhyzGtPo3Vvez6XpLYB63TKdP7/lv17jPlTYbXL+hdGJoL4nSGbsKiNgcjq/ DJ6rUOOa+8YQOc/IUt7pfJVMMH1ITuXQm+lMsS/6q8rnwIdb6WVUaGrJo5NeTB1D/t+6 0rB8AMkYIOduJ9S9nM7aDter7xalBHM4QmPeSxIvlMvhKmWg4vtZWTt+Lvn+XOXQ7jvN ylhpFPRV5MJa6WSYqa3AaJdnu4tA+r/ECfJqMmWyUG/Jh7MbwYtq6blYBB3cxMtvMabE Vx0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXERCGK047+ocLUELU3rgkc8FAMyPmrAoyY+XIAGo92DDJAEVJ1rwHSxFWzxLBagLedK5RtJCdD6Oxm8Q==
X-Received: by 10.202.224.70 with SMTP id x67mr4430513oig.124.1461173439513; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.231.106 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:30:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0v2tpJ0E=-Wm65xaWnPZHkmynMevoWQLOywMPm5AwAxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: rtg-ads@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d38a0d14bda0530edf38c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/yesQoDK1_tHUZQsV7TK9mY0hd2o>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, isis-wg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag.all@ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:30:45 -0000
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
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node-adm… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node… Pushpasis Sarkar
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node… Andrew G. Malis