Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05
Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Fri, 11 August 2017 03:37 UTC
Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31957131C9E; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T00MNUfElyqZ; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22c.google.com (mail-ua0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4370131D1E; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f9so10717305uaf.4; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o6Fk/tv1KasgnCA/jXRCCn03mJ4lGAWNbBTCads20t8=; b=T8wcGxQ5uD6bqcRYI9u8VaHmLnzDqT90k+WddkjVMFIgcCQbsq0co4+O99ggms4+HY a9r8SLYcLhugcbo8/Q1rrMYl8uU9t1FDT0JcgNm1EH5K+NRZlfuZfGkx6db9tXRz0tN5 CAxOzgTe4T5IlM94RLVFE1/dSoi9txWwOJXGlN1jjDcTdoY9o15phrXCxfIaJoNo4kUT o3WAaTRg6HJK9FkE0h/GvDkEYIScdfzK5oGAjs7dKxI8iXoOUcXQlfN1p6ltZW7a4wzf W4CW2qXM8e40CEvKvdfF6Mm56jpS4cpaKmpY/gtQFJuMsLaIVEoDp0KBZrfKi6dst2ie hhUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o6Fk/tv1KasgnCA/jXRCCn03mJ4lGAWNbBTCads20t8=; b=UppCeSxJtlMFplC5/FJIs/o+RZc1ZQy2wgYoRULCJ+o8K7wpmA5KdQsaMdTWxp+63b upNbrPnIunxJGnyHV5+zmxgeFZp6yZn2VLZ6EntY3EZX7CAI2AX/vCi/njc80bYblhb4 7xSVTwZ9bSQwM0wuqb2va8PuHE3+AaIRiX+/NYoGSkU50Hjojd8vD+HiAs4zN9gN6r/2 4OgpLxeHU8dBV8ZTYnyHaKJDAjjmUxgKIX6f51aEV4P3HTsSGexSfnk0GByjxljdNT2S HlEuAu4Gi3l15lgyQn6s3DscRvytW4Hg/wFkmBkelZejovIhVcIqQQvZ1mRiY2SMyiKt LWZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5htlwOZkGtBxeCLrFWQbU6tOjgxmG4EqTwcrKyJ0/TUb0uayq9c WxIsbkdIE3uPczMKWBbEGc9mZZmCyA==
X-Received: by 10.176.2.205 with SMTP id 71mr10628613uah.161.1502422661782; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.60.74 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 20:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+fLEhKhbArzJfzmPEYULFN5_EAk3_aG044eWy4eytqb_0SdRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+fLEhKhbArzJfzmPEYULFN5_EAk3_aG044eWy4eytqb_0SdRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 23:37:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTsWPeRA4NBP6qeACvLTykUyqQ-5JJgPe25qx4AG1LH+cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Victoria Pritchard <pritchardv0@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec.all@ietf.org, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113acb420ee28b05567209b2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/iszgE-1sghRmH2S4pBsOiAnb6tY>
Subject: Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:37:45 -0000
Victoria, Hi! Much Thanks for the review. We (the authors) just posted a new rev (-06) to address the nits below. Please do go over the diffs ( https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06.txt ) and let us know if there are any further concerns. Please see inline (prefixed VPB) below for responses. Regards, -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Victoria Pritchard <pritchardv0@gmail.com> 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-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-05 > Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard > Review Date: 27/07/2017 > IETF LC End Date: > Intended Status: Standards Track > > *Summary:* > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be considered prior to publication. > > *Comments:* > > The draft is well written and really clear to read, although contains some > language which does not read as formally as I would expect from a standards > track document, especially in the appendix. > > *Major Issues:* > > No major issues found. > > *Minor Issues:* > > No minor issues found. > > *Nits:* > > Section 2.2 "MUST act as if the all the Path" contains an extra "the". > [VPB] Fixed. > Section 2.3 "RSVP- TE control plane congestion" has an extra space after > RSVP. > [VPB] Fixed. > Also, I'm not sure a sentence should start with "And". > [VPB] There are sufficient examples in today's literature (technical or otherwise) of sentences that start with a "conjunction". We left the sentence as is for now -- 'll revisit if the concern persists. > Section 2.3.2 "it is risky to assume" - would it be better to say MUST NOT > assume, or SHOULD NOT assume? > [VPB] Fixed. > > Appendix - after stating the default value, would help to separate the > explanation using either a full stop or a new line. > > "sort of analogous", "same ballpark", "nicely matches up", "about 30 (31.5 > to be precise)" seemed strange phrases to use and could be reworded to be > more formal. > > > [VPB] Fixed -- added a full stop after each value and rephrased the specified sentences . > > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > >
- [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-sca… Victoria Pritchard
- Re: [Teas] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te… Vishnu Pavan Beeram