Re: [Teas] FW: Pre last call comments in draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned-upstream-label

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Pavan,

I think my comments have been sufficiently addressed for the document to 
progress.  Given the proximity to the meeting, it'll have to wait a few weeks.

Lou



On March 13, 2017 6:09:59 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Lou, Hi!
>
> We just posted a new revision (-05) for this draft. Please do go through
> the diffs and let us know if there are still any concerns.
> The use-case (example) currently discussed in Section 3 can be moved to an
> Appendix if needed.
>
> Please see inline (prefixed VPB) for responses to your comments.
>
> Regards,
> -Pavan
>
>
>
>>
>>> On 2/1/17, 2:20 PM, "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>     I've done the typical review of this document in preparation for LC
>>> (as shepherd) and have some comments:
>>>
>>> 1) I think section 2, 3, and the 1st paragraph of 4 are reasonable
>>> background which was helpful getting the document to this level of
>>> maturity, but now largely detracts from the focus of the document, i.e.,
>>> a protocol extension.  I recommend (at your/the WG's discretion)
>>> dropping this text or moving it to an appendix.
>>>
>>> With this move the 2nd paragraph of section 4 can be integrated with the
>>> introduction.
>>>
>>
> [VPB] We moved some text from the 2nd paragraph of Section 4 to Section 1
> and got rid of Sections 2, 3 and 4.
>
>
>>
>>> 2) The last paragraph of Section6.1 and all of Section 6.2 -
>>>
>>> These sections define procedures, but are in a section that is basically
>>> an example.  They should be moved in section, and section 6.2 should
>>> discuss "Label Change" using wavelength as an example is of course fine.
>>> Nit/style level comments:
>>>
>>
> [VPB] All the new procedures introduced by this draft are covered in
> section 2 (of the -05 version). The procedures mentioned in the last
> paragraph
> of the "Initial Setup" Section are use-case specific and not new (not
> introduced
> by this draft). This paragraph was added to address some use-case related
> queries that came in during the early stages of the draft. We edited the
> text a bit
> to make it not give the impression that these procedures are new. If it is
> still a
> concern, we can consider removing this paragraph. As far as the "wavelength
> change" section is concerned, we moved the "label change - error processing
> procedure" text to Section 2.
>
>
>>
>>> - at the end of section 1.  Perhaps s/onto/nodes downstream in
>>>
>>
> [VPB] Done.
>
>
>> - section 5.2:
>>> s/older implementation and doesn't understand/implementation that
>>> doesn't support
>>>
>>
> [VPB] Done.
>
>>
>>> - Section 6.1, the identified procedures should have references
>>>
>>
> [VPB] Added References.
>
>
>>
>>> - Section 3 (if kept/moved):
>>>
>>>     - The above solution assumes the use of "symmetric labels" by
>>>       default.
>>>
>>
> [VPB] This section/statement no longer exists.
>
>>
>>> This may be true in some implementations, but certainly is true for all
>>> or by specification.  Suggest drop or prepend "In some implementations, "
>>>
>>> - Section 4 (if kept/moved): drop "it is  an undocumented fact that"
>>>
>>
> [VPB] This section/statement no longer exists.
>
>>
>>> That's it.  Please let me know what you think.
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----------
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>