Re: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Matt,

    Great; just one clarification inline:

   From: Matt Hartley (mhartley) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 2016年5月3日 23:12
To: Zhangxian (Xian); Vishnu Pavan Beeram; [e-mail]
Cc: Matt Hartley (mhartley)
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05

Thanks for the comments, Xian!

On the encoding section: the feedback I’ve received in the past is that it’s better not to do add the bit numbers to the encoding section as you have to mark them as provisional/TBD, and that’s then more work for the RFC Editor to clean up when IANA does the assignment… but I agree, the doc would read better if you didn’t have to go to another section to see the values. Chairs, Deborah – any comment on this?

Just to make sure I get my point through, I am not talking about the code point allocation, but just how many bits each field takes (for example: Is length field 8-bit or 7-bit? A bad example, just to illustrate the point). AFAIK, IANA section does not cover this information. If it is not provided, the reader/implementer may need to do a manual count.  But the encoding in this draft is so simple that you may not see the necessity, so up to you/the draft editor.

Regards,
Xian

Thanks for the nits – I’ll sort those out when LC is done.

Cheers

Matt

Hi, all,

I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.

I have one suggestion on the encoding section: could we add the bit number for each field explanation? It may be a bit redundant, but I find it usually clearer if we have such information in the text.

Others are just some nits:
1： s/Note that specification of the the use of the collected SRLGs is outside the scope of this document./Note that specification of the use of the collected SRLGs is outside the scope of this document.
2：s/SRLG information is for each hop is added to the Path RRO during Path message processing./SRLG information is added by each hop to the Path RRO during Path message processing.(?)
3: consider relocating the following sentence to the very beginning of this section(5.1), maybe?
A node SHOULD NOT add SRLG information without an explicit request for it being made by the ingress node in the Path message.
4: The points listed in Section 6.1 started with “o” are squeezed together in one paragraph; please rectify.

Regards,
Xian

From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 2016年4月29日 4:42
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05

All,
This starts a two week working group last call on
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-05.

The working group last call ends on Thursday, May 12th. Please
send your comments to the TEAS mailing list.

As is always the case, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this
document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.
Note, IPR has been disclosed on this draft.

Thanks,
Pavan (and Lou)