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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

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!



>
>> 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.

Thanks!
Dhruv



> Thanks!
>> Dhruv
>>
>