Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Dan, thank you for your review. Stephane, thank you for addressing Dan’s comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephane, 
> 
> Draft 09 addresses my (minor) concerns. Thank you for the prompt response end for the edits. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:46 PM <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The -09 has been published and should address your comment.
> 
> Feel free to raise any additional concern.
> 
> Brgds,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 15:29
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
> 
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2018-12-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Ready
> 
> This document analyzes the impact of using non-standardized IGP Link State
> implementations resulting in non-consistent tuning of parameters in the network
> and increased possibility of creating micro-loops. It can be viewed as a
> problem statement for standardized solutions like RFC 8405.
> 
> The document is short and clear for implementers and operators familiar with
> networks running this class of protocols. Diagrams and table help in reading
> and understanding the material.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> none
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> none
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1. In the introduction:
> 
> > For non standardized timers, implementations are free to implement it
>    in any way.
> 
> It is not obvious what 'it' means. I guess it's about different values of
> timers resulting in the possibility of micro-loops creation, but it would be
> better to clarify.
> 
> 2. It would be useful to provide short explanations that make the figures more
> clear. In fig. 1 - what do the nodes represent (routers implementing the
> protocols), in fig. 2, and 3 - the abbreviations on the y axis
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art