Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam>

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Bob,


Here is the docx-file, it is not exactly the same version as I used to
create the txt-file, since I continued to look at the figure for the
reference topology, and in that process I also corrected a spelling
erros and cleared up the text for some comments.

The only real change is that I have added an alternative to the figure
(note: no problems with the topology itself) for the reference topology
at the end of the docx file.

/Loa

On 20/01/2020 19:12, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Loa,
> 
> Thanks for doing the review.  I think it may be worthwhile to also send out the .docx file in addition to the text version.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> On Jan 19, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> WG,
>>
>> I have reviewed the entire document.
>>
>> First, I'm not an IPv6 expert.
>>
>> As far as I can see the sued on
>>
>> I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn the tools,
>> but so far I have failed.
>>
>> I have instead done what I use to do, use the review tool with Word.
>>
>> Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save the result
>> as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as refrences to a
>> list at the end of the document. But you can't get everything.
>>
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot and in itself are
>> so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and asking them
>> to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting the wglc?
>>
>> idnits 2.16.02
>>
>> /tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt:
>>
>>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>>   https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>      No issues found here.
>>
>>   Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>      No issues found here.
>>
>>   Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>   ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
>>      being 6 characters in excess of 72.
>>
>>   == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
>>      in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
>>
>>
>>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>   == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
>>      match the current year
>>
>>   -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not
>>      defined in RFC 2119.  If it is intended as a requirements expression, it
>>      should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119;
>>      otherwise it should not be all-uppercase.
>>
>>   == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text,
>>      is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used.  Consider using 'MUST
>>      NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
>>
>>      Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
>>
>>      To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo request message is
>>      generated by the initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the
>>      segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the target SID. There MAY
>>      or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
>>
>>   == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text,
>>      is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used.  Consider using 'MUST
>>      NOT' instead (if that is what you mean).
>>
>>      Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph:
>>
>>      To traceroute a target SID a probe message is generated by the
>>      initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the segment-list of the SRH
>>      immediately preceding the target SID.  There MAY or MAY NOT be additional
>>      segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID.
>>
>>   -- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days in the past.  Is this
>>      intentional?
>>
>>
>>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
>>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line 190, but not defined
>>
>>   -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 191
>>
>>   -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 191
>>
>>   -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 192
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on line 230, but not defined
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is mentioned on line
>>      241, but not defined
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line 701, but not defined
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line 660, but not defined
>>
>>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 823, but no explicit
>>      reference was found in the text
>>
>>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line 843, but no explicit
>>      reference was found in the text
>>
>>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
>>      draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06
>>
>>
>>      Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 5 comments (--).
>>
>>      Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
>>      the items above.
>>
>> On 05/12/2019 04:53, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>    As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
>>>    Title    : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
>>>    Author   : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer, M. Chen
>>>    Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02
>>>    Pages    : 23
>>>    Date     : 2019-11-20
>>>                                https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/
>>> as a Proposed Standard.
>>> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
>>> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last call will end on the 18th of December 2019.
>>> To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as early as possible, we would require at least
>>> two reviewers to do a complete review of the document.  Please let the chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer.
>>> The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group, with discussion directed to the ipv6 list.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert
>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>> <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt>
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]