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

"Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com> Fri, 15 May 2015 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <kreeger@cisco.com>
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 BA1821A8032 for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 sQ5VP4Rs1qdb for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B7371A1BF8 for <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2015 12:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2709; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1431717061; x=1432926661; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=uMPOR6T9l3J6Ocgb5p8/M1eGJzmHVAr/h9iYVzVJ/oM=; b=G/YU+kjYjiAY4qllK59PgKDqJVysOwWQeIK3RC62uBq7xNs4XsbZBEdR IjaeUlAvweExhlLcQ71cu0kw7cnjMVTpF7GBj9h0SU0cgXzA3c+/R17Vx MCWpCirSVyYcsmYkXDaXBtgiAZjHwZ4kuYt8MXg26J9nYNjnnig6vnRBy E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BeBAA8RFZV/5FdJa1cgxBUXgbEXwmBTwyFdAKBNjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQQBAQEkEzQbAgEIGB4QJwslAgQBEogsDdckAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFgSLOoUMhC0FkmGEKYZKgSeDZZFzI4IKHIFSb4FFgQEBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,436,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="150598890"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2015 19:11:00 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4FJB0og000444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 May 2015 19:11:00 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.93]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:11:00 -0500
From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kreeger@cisco.com>
To: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>, "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review
Thread-Index: AQHQjm/4os07u12chEOyOvSlkY94M518QrqAgAFLtQD//7jnAA==
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 19:10:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D17B92B8.1488A8%kreeger@cisco.com>
References: <5554E2C1.3000306@sonic.net> <D17A72CE.14859D%kreeger@cisco.com> <55561DF4.2020504@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: <55561DF4.2020504@sonic.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.9.150325
x-originating-ip: [10.24.231.229]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <60C40ECBB4FE6B40AD95226D0F746CBE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/oFT1QW2bNORz77J0NQH7pJ_wCso>
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 19:11:04 -0000

I'm fine with both of the changes you proposed. - Larry

On 5/15/15 9:25 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <nordmark@sonic.net> wrote:

>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-6MJvZ3D9PK1Lpjws
>>>Rg
>>> 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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rtg-dt-encap-considerations mailing list
>Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations