IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-04

Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 16 February 2024 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A99C19ECB9; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:12:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-g12lEZveRE; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD632C14F6A6; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:12:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d10f52e7d8so26507031fa.3; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:12:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708110738; x=1708715538; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cfwHcz7IXuyDldKLTeNZuREnvlDhagvzcbCfaOon3DY=; b=H0PBWvhEhQdOQGf+hesDDPOQZ/liauiab7eznxuTYA5dIufP2TI69OL19bLjJTNuBJ IfHQlqAfMdz93513SKJCLq/mEEp8SVxrWPu34IZqNMm7+i4Xmf/kKlT1UejyYaLZtOTM +zxPxpirzQT+I/230rel9AFAax3faCLn7eGIkNO4e/XjdsdORSFaEiqnRPj6Orcuhbyk Ju2fWeqSvpctIiYV/w/DmG3b7fqMxlHhzpNm/FXvKT2PCCYt4Lo9wYUHrtnJpNhsmqZ8 mwJOr2Gkll1OVROn0hRMozO9RAMA4tu9QrtlrgYOkwDFp0+gHQ4bEx4QBzeyWPW1+uIW 0rFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708110738; x=1708715538; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=cfwHcz7IXuyDldKLTeNZuREnvlDhagvzcbCfaOon3DY=; b=nK0o7/c2kQyEPya1fJRRvhCI/O8rnlIDXlA2OM9ir6A4L/UnfWIaD9T2zLGEdz8ZQh nl0r5d69SxjQWApeaM74P3OyV4Xsou+oLzBHHAnagkUixN34Cn83EadE02Q/tOCBSxFH W0p2S8wIk5mXlKaW4E321BJKZmZB9AWAGlJKTdLCgc5apnybly/gOlV7r5zf42CdZMKs OrgQ/4OriucdRmNtRJYSB2AimT9aK1WqTne5oMXXTWaCcRzIhC3NFS39fx8b2naXVVfr fXPyLPe5xCzC3bh285lcxND3wu098mnTw3pbQX2GLOjZvv6N/j/2vcovbfNBr35ad+YY +ufw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXZ+ZujfRLboEJ4Y8HlXLOVZ+oucNJPaL9RgdjJEcPsimuBXlgZLgpBsgVqjbSwk7j2OSQbmqjgz2Vm/NuPywyO9YPNd8ofVvb/RLkptsOHcJ2n+rEhjIA1xMbegAXNi5MX8GG+OHMxCB+I2BFtwR7tByVocalHmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy7pbccGHygTbGuQ6fSU0eM+zNoHeJOwT3B42kSKI7dplD1xMbH Y+O8NzRjUZfeQNIO09jXPL1oFLrceK2JIAAPPidTTa9ibGp3nGPnU2V66PEPZ1clwWrw3f4a9dx aBgTUw6VP8zOiI7MooSryD6SbY9HTcDk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGIUYnClr/qYPkGOn7VYUTHq8iieNrvUrEbmcpLvGa5slUW3pxCiqMgOWzRXygeLaL/L3c2xUrDqTEEKcwW6Q8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e49:0:b0:2d1:276b:860 with SMTP id g9-20020a2e9e49000000b002d1276b0860mr4419150ljk.31.1708110738218; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:12:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170740849234.20668.9631581666463305338@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <170740849234.20668.9631581666463305338@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:12:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABY-gOOHH7p38xVCE1kPqBQhk8DaXyv8byOTdYk4kW0=X5rrzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Scharf <michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tvr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c9e4250611848529"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/hVppgq-PRzG6Dv_R28k64FTeONg>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-04
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 19:12:55 -0000

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the review. We've uploaded version -05 to address your comments:
Section 6 has been removed.

Please kindly review and let us know if you have any other comments.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 8:08 AM Michael Scharf via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Michael Scharf
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
> IETF
> discussion list for information.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> This informational document introduces Time-Variant Routing Use Cases. The
> text
> is well-written and easy to read. Most of the use cases are fairly
> obvious. In
> any case, there are no specific TSV-ART issues, i.e., problems related to
> Internet transport protocols.
>
> Yet, more in general, I don't understand why Section 6 is included in this
> document. This section may easily become outdated by other documents and
> future
> RFCs. Its content is also neither mentioned in the title nor introduced in
> the
> abstract. The whole section 6 could just be removed without any impact on
> the
> remaining parts of the document.
>
>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email