Re: [Teas] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03: (with COMMENT)

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2015 13:54 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151001095829.12341.64042.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20151001095829.12341.64042.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:54:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcF_SbJkcZC=5aqA4myaeLfBVuA-dBku6DDpn_xpdJa_w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1663e00986905210b63a1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YPQipMt8K2O-Wl7xbuFvR7CPzkE>
Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org)" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Benoit,

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As mentioned by Sue in her OPS-DIR review:
> Status: Review with nits (very minor nits)
>
> General comments:  Document is precise, well-written, and understandable
> to those who have read the documents this draft depends on.  There is not
> a specific operations section, but this mechanisms would be included in a
> PCE or other calculation engine.   This reviewer does not see any reason
> why additional text needs to be utilized.  Individuals who write such
> algorithms and programs are utilizing these mechanisms to provide better
> paths.
>
> Nit #1:  section 1.2
>
> EF and AF abbreviations are not spelled out.  Unless these are part of
> the RFC editor’s abbreviations, it should be spelled out.
>

in abbreviations


> Nit #2: section 2.3.1
>
> /Link Los sub-TLV/Link Loss sub-TLV/
>
> /Sub-TLV[I-D-ietf.isis-te-metric-extensions]/sub-TLV
> [I-D-ietf.isis-te-metric-extensions]
>

fixed


>
> I would add: spell out the ERO abbreviation.
>

It's actually a well-known abbreviation (according to the RFC Editor
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt) - but no
harm in clarity.  I did expand it the first time.

Thanks,
Alia

Re: [Teas] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Alia Atlas