Re: [Teas] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)

[Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>]

Dear Lars,


Thank you for your review and comments. 

This draft contains some amount of text copied from RFC 4872, which this draft tries to update. In the attached file, the text copied from RFC 4872 is high-lighted in yellow. If you think this draft does not require the pre5378 boilerplate, please, let us know. We will change the boilerplate. 

Regarding the nits, we will fix them all in the revision.


Best regards,

Jeong-dong (on behalf of the co-authors)




-----Original Message-----
From:  "Lars Eggert via Datatracker" <[e-mail]>
To:     "The IESG" <[e-mail]>; 
Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
Sent:  2022-04-05 (화) 21:56:46 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Document has a TLP Section 6.c.iii "pre-5378" boilerplate. Is this really
needed? What text is copied from an older RFC?

Thanks to Dale Worley for their General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/sVz7p-OqBMRBhxHaqKo9667CRd8).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in
the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
License".

Section 4. , paragraph 8, nit:
> hase several secondary LSPs in an efficient manner, and (5) the capability to
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "efficiently" to avoid
wordiness.

Section 5.5. , paragraph 2, nit:
> does not need the shared resources any more. Upon receipt of this Notify mess
>                                    ^^^^^^^^
Did you mean the adverb "anymore"?

Section 5.6. , paragraph 3, nit:
> t to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra- Traffic), 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Pro
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word seems to be formatted incorrectly. Consider fixing the spacing or
removing the hyphen completely.