Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> Fri, 15 May 2015 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@sonic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6134F1A1B22 for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 09:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 NhMDH62rkfss for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9FF71A03AA for <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.22.227.238] ([162.210.130.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t4FGPObI013513 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 May 2015 09:25:24 -0700
Message-ID: <55561DF4.2020504@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 09:25:24 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>, "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
References: <5554E2C1.3000306@sonic.net> <D17A72CE.14859D%kreeger@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D17A72CE.14859D%kreeger@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVb2Vd6PYqq/KJRpT3jTVAOjWK7iAtuzpyryUPfmoqYKw2qdZENTr9n4314KqR/cenUOjHZ1xlX665hrlm0M/CRW
X-Sonic-ID: C;eFQ6/R775BGs2TDDQUxNRQ== M;FpVH/R775BGs2TDDQUxNRQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/2nJhqUFz42HNF1ZiP-t3TyOa1i8>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review
X-BeenThere: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Design Team on Encapsulation Considerations discussion list <rtg-dt-encap-considerations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:25:28 -0000

On 5/14/15 8:37 PM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> In reviewing the document I found the following grammar issues.
>
>   - Larry
>    
>
> Section 8, 2nd para: "is a function of the preceding header the same was
>   as IPv4 being identified by both an Ethernet type and an IP protocol".
> Maybe "the same was as" -> "the same as"
I think I meant "the same way as". But also makes sense to get rid of 
the "being" to make it "the same way as IPv4 is identified ..."
>
> Section 11.4, 1st bullet: "Need extensibility to be able to add".  I would
> prepend "Encapsulations need extensibility..."
ok
>
> Section 13, "In summary" 2nd bullet: "If the encapsulation can..., the
> leverage the approach", change "the leverage" to "then leverage".
ok
>
> Section 14, "In summary" 1st bullet: "Need extensibility to be able to
> add".  I would prepend "Encapsulations need extensibility..."
ok
>
>
> Section 14, "In summary" 2nd bullet: "When encaps has checksum/CRC".
> Change "has" to "have".
How about a more complete sentence saying "When the encapsulation has a 
checksum/CRC, include the IPv6 pseudo-header in it"?

Thanks,
    Erik

>
>
>
>
> On 5/14/15 11:00 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <nordmark@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Attached is -02 of the document.
>>
>> Albert said he would check whether there are some additional text we
>> want to add about the control word, but I've completed the other edits
>> we have discussed.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OvGxiNTPuncHl1N-6JH-6MJvZ3D9PK1LpjwsRg
>> ArgJ8/
>> is up to date with the issues, but doesn't have the exact same proposed
>> text changes as the I-D.
>>
>> I edited the attached diffs to remove the diffs related to the change in
>> pagination.
>>
>> Please review the changes, and check whether there are additional things
>> we should lift out to the "In summary" bulleted lists.
>>
>> It would be good to submit this next week - if anything controversial
>> shows up we can discuss it on the call next Thursday.
>>
>> Regards,
>>     Erik
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-dt-encap-considerations mailing list
> Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations
>