Re: [secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05

Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <wyaacov@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392D721F8BC5; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EbPVCB4K5TkQ; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFE821F8B9C; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r5so1987391wey.39 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UEnMhD4R3L66Qf2uuC2C0btppIxGcZx837i4e9h1i+w=; b=bz1NW6I59LpttGwH4M0KI0CsE/tjZ9sU27a/j1b2hdDmXAHxvUlwonRAOMdLlUSheg KDJPsWxYlmih4473IOBR7tSGOuxPb+Q6dIKhadS1D3WDQ47uCnjlNVbGLm9Kjsy597Yz ifho2clbKgJi6oYK+iLNOY88Obi3E8KLHc8GSy1lGD+lgMwg4XGmmftxvvDJnlZdUld7 URkhZrLB/PIBfZQZR5ZhuSNPP0ji3WJoI5+ovDo2khL6D3Kk4961kPrEHYM2Nu0900ty jOv1nuw17s9678E6BAmriXLyKgSPUv5cRIWhf5Q6eTirRlCEy/RkIQGQtLIZFXhFDnEF D2FQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.10.129 with SMTP id i1mr1720473wjb.21.1366278466096; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.13.104 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A8165CD009@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CANTg3aBEVu1ZubJUMx=S3EbOWhPdw2=EF2KDR0e+6dQb3OYPMg@mail.gmail.com> <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A8165CD009@dfweml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:47:46 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM0WBXVegjW_VX=5KGWkgWmVY6tg=X5dYQneMj2yS0ArKs-F2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com>
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d5bd8a3a41e04da9f7e19
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 02:56:08 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:47:48 -0000

Tina, hi

Thank you for your review, and thank you for the link to the official
acronym list.

I will incorporate your suggested fixes into the new version of the
document that will be uploaded shortly.

BR,
yaacov

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>wrote:

>  Dear all,****
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.****
>
> ** **
>
> It is technically ready, but a few editorial suggestions are below.****
>
> ** **
>
> Typo, second-last paragraph of Section 1, last sentence:****
>
>   s/doxument/document/****
>
> ** **
>
> Editorial suggestion: introduce the abbreviations P2P and P2MP in their
> respective bullets at the beginning of Section 1.1. According to the RFC
> Editor's list of abbreviations at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt,****
>
> these are not considered well-known, therefore need to be spelled out on
> first use. Note the capitalization, per the RFC Editor's list.****
>
> ** **
>
> In case 3. of Section 1.1, delete "that" after "operator command" in the
> first line to make it consistent with the other two cases.****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 1.2 first paragraph last sentence: the subject of the sentence is
> the singular "Requirement", hence s/are/is/ in the final line.****
>
> ** **
>
> The authors can consider whether they need to spell out LSP and LSR at the
> start of Section 1.3. Again, the RFC Editor does not consider these to be
> "well-known" abbreviations.****
>
> ** **
>
> Second paragraph below Figure 1: The last sentence begins: "Coordination
> of the switchover ..." I assume the intention here is to indicate that in
> this case operation is not so simple as the first sentence indicates. ****
>
> That should perhaps be signalled by beginning the sentence with: ****
>
> "However, coordination of the switchover ..."****
>
> ** **
>
> Sentence before Figure 7: s/complimentary/complementary/****
>
> ** **
>
> Spell out e2e in the second paragraph below Figure 8, since it is used
> once only.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you,****
>
> Tina****
>



-- 
Thanx and BR,
yaacov

*Still looking for new opportunity*