IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-08

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Thu, 21 January 2016 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E1C1B32DE; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 SouHjGmO4NXH; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:46:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 102A31B32DD; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:46:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21198; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1453394776; x=1454604376; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=TqltZ7BTJknSLnhr2KH80nJ5Mj8gAlf/zQcx9ZBT148=; b=KEJ2+nrjq+PXEkNK4SlQxyEi6FkIEMoS/AUSbV/KP1IRrv8T55v6s0qN w9Pv+tdzg4aCQPyBH6DRjBygCQLyaOEahUvgx8WEXoDjaZBIk2jwSUm6j VYOFEPTreJSVT/fXnp6lAGXg+rs1oUJyyj+GSapYj+KME+z7dZXTgRpuW c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AHAgAyCqFW/5FdJa1egm5MUm0GiFGyHgENgWKGDwKBPTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDUBAQQtTBACAQgOBCYHBzIUAw4BAQQBDQWIG71pAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFYY4AYRziQgFjWGFEYQDAYg3hR+BXoREiFeFa4hQAR4BAUKBfhiBUGqGJ3wBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,326,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="69241213"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2016 16:46:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0LGkE7p011441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:46:14 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:46:14 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:46:14 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Pierre Francois (pifranco)" <pifranco@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-08
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-08
Thread-Index: AdFLymRfrf/gcWOOTVmsW4QZcyGUtgDVLR6AAVZ8DYAAAFWuAAAFjuqA///GAAA=
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <D2C67457.109D49%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <BY2PR05MB61465BA37FE49CCECF3B1DDA9C80@BY2PR05MB614.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D2BD4A66.100DB9%aretana@cisco.com> <D2C68BB1.6B20D%pifranco@cisco.com> <56A0D05A.6020608@gmail.com> <CO2PR05MB619A2E6F5EDDC6FD8BBBB6DA9C30@CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO2PR05MB619A2E6F5EDDC6FD8BBBB6DA9C30@CO2PR05MB619.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2C67457109D49aretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/znduLJSb8t3o1zlZ9Z1SGXT03ys>
Cc: "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:46:18 -0000

On 1/21/16, 10:13 AM, "Chris Bowers" <cbowers@juniper.net<mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>> wrote:

Chris:

Hi!

Pierre and Stewart,

Thanks for the feedback.  I will remove the comparison table and text from the next revision.

Alvaro,

Would you like a new revision without the comparison table sometime before the IESG telechat on 2/4, or should I wait to incorporate this change with other potential changes requested by the IESG?

Yes, please post a new revision.  We need it by the end of next week (Jan/29).  I haven't seen other IETF LC comments yet, but you may want to wait just in case (and still publish an update by the 29th).

I will remove the unused reference to I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability.

With respect to the use of "we", "we" generally refers to the authors.  In general, we use "we" to explain why we (the authors) are explaining things in a particular order.    I did a quick search for the usage of "we note" and "we consider" in RFCs, and it seems fairly common to use we in this way.    The usages of "we" could be changed to passive or imperative form, but in many cases I think it would make the text more awkward.

Yeah, as I said, it is a style nit.  Given that this is a Standards Track document (ie. A rough consensus document), it is a little awkward that "we" refers to the authors and not the WG, or the IETF..  Again, just a style nit..

Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email