Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-05

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

Thank you for the thorough review of the document.

We have posted following revision that addresses your comments:

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-06


Thanks,

Rakesh (for authors and contributors)





On 2016-12-07, 7:44 AM, "Christian Hopps" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
>Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
>they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
>request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
>For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
>Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
>be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
>comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
>updating the draft.
>
>Document: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-05
>Reviewer: Christian Hopps
>Review Date: 2016-12-06
>IETF LC End Date: Unknown
>Intended Status: Informational
>
>Summary:
>========
>
>    This document is basically ready for publication. It has 1 minor
>    issue and some nits that should be considered prior to publication.
>
>Comments:
>=========
>
>    I found the draft fairly well written, easy to understand with good
>    references. I believe that after fixing the minor issue and nits,
>    this informational draft will be ready for publication. This was the
>    first TEAS draft I have reviewed, and as a result it may mean that
>    my review is less in depth than others.
>
>Major Issues:
>=============
>
>    No major issues found.
>
>
>Minor Issues:
>=============
>
>    1. 3rd paragraph: First sentence doesn't parse for me, i.e., I can't figure
>       out what this means:
>
>           "In GMPLS end-to-end recovery schemes generally considered,
>           restoration..."
>
>       Is it trying to say:
>
>           "When considering GMPLS end-to-end recovery schemes, the
>           restoration..."?
>
>       or
>
>           "Generally GMPLS end-to-end recovery schemes have the restoration..."
>
>       or
>
>            ...?
>
>Nits:
>=====
>
>    Most of these are due to missing articles (i.e., the/a/an). I may
>    have missed some.
>
>    1. 2nd paragraph:
>          Change: "ASSOCIATION object" to "an ASSOCIATION object"
>
>    1. 4th paragraph:
>        Add a comma after "teardown"
>        Change: "including following" to "including the following"
>
>    1. 6th paragraph:
>        Change: "ASSOCIATION object with" to "an ASSOCIATION object with"
>        Change: "Procedure" to "The procedure"
>        Change: "ASSOCIATION object is" to "an ASSOCIATION object is"
>
>    2.1. 1st paragrah:
>        Change: ", working LSP" to: ", a working LSP"
>        Change:
>            "Unlike protection LSP, restoration LSP is signaled per need basis."
>        to:
>            "Unlike a protection LSP, a restoration LSP is signaled on a per
>            need basis."
>
>    2.1. 2nd paragraph:
>        Change: "Typically when failure is recovered"
>        to: "Typically when the failure has recovered"
>        Change: "restoration LSP" to: "the restoration LSP"
>        Change: "and torn down, while" to: "and is torn down while"
>
>    2.2. 2nd paragraph:
>        Change ", working LSP on" to: ", a working LSP on"
>        Change "and protecting LSP on" to: "and a protecting LSP on"
>        Change:
>            "Nonetheless, restoration LSP with working LSP it is restoring as
>            well as restoration LSP with protecting LSP it is restoring can
>            share network resources.
>        to:
>            "Nonetheless, a restoration LSP with the working LSP it is restoring
>            as well as a restoration LSP with the protecting LSP it is restoring
>            can share network resources.
>
>    2.2. 3nd paragraph:
>        Change: "restoration LSP" to "a restoration LSP"
>
>    2.2. 4th paragraph:
>        Change: "either working" to: "either a working"
>
>    2.2. 5th paragraph:
>        Change: "either working" to: "either a working"
>
>    3.2. 4th paragraph:
>        Change: ", node may" to: ", a node may"
>
>    3.2. 5th paragraph:
>        Change: "reroute procedure" to: "the reroute procedure"
>        Change: "rerouting process" to: "the rerouting process"
>
>    3.2. Table 1, Category C1, 2nd paragraph:
>    3.2. Table 1, Category C2, 2nd paragraph:
>    3.2. Table 1, Category C3, 2nd paragraph:
>        In each change "This type of nodes needs" to:
>            "This type of node needs".
>        or
>            "These types of nodes need".
>
>    3.3. 2nd paragraph:
>        Change "with working" to "with a working"
>
>    3.3. 3rd paragraph:
>        Change "with working" to "with a working"
>
>    3.3.1. 2nd paragraph:
>        Change "has few" to "has a few".
>
>    3.3.1. 3rd from last paragraph:
>        Change "in corner cases completion guarantee" to
>        "in corner cases a completion guarantee"
>
>    3.3.2. 1st paragraph:
>        Change "head-end chooses" to "the head-end chooses"