I added this in an RFC Editor Note.

No further action required.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Callon [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 18 August 2011 21:20
> To: Zafar Ali (zali); Ben Campbell; draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Ross Callon
> Subject: One sentence, RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-
> php-oob-mapping-08
> 
> I dropped the ietf from the recipients for this email since this is too minor
to bug
> everyone with the nit, but...
> 
> The first sentence of section 3 is currently:
> 
>    Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variable of attacks on the
>    label assigned by the Egress node.
> 
> Do we really intend to say:
> 
>    Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variety of attacks on the
>    label assigned by the Egress node.
> 
> Ross
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zafar
> Ali (zali)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:46 PM
> To: Ben Campbell; draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; The IETF
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-
> 08
> 
> Dear Ben-
> 
> Many thanks to your detailed review. I have addressed all your comments
> in the enclosed version. Please see in-line for details.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards ... Zafar
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:27 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: The IETF; [email protected] Review Team
> > Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
> > mapping-08
> >
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> > you may receive.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping
> > Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> > Review Date: 2011-08-12
> > IETF LC End Date: 2011-08-12
> >
> > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed
> > standard. There are a few editorial issues and nits that should be
> > considered prior to publication.
> >
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > None
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > None
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > -- Please proofread for missing articles (i.e. a, an, the)
> >
> 
> Opps, I failed my English test again ;-) I did proofread the document
> and have tried to fix the articles to best of my ability. Certainly look
> forward to help from RFC editor, if I may please.
> 
> BTW I always struggle which one of the following is (more) correct:
> 
> "An RSVP-TE LSP" vs. "A RSVP-TE LSP"
> 
> Document uses "an RSVP-TE LSP".
> 
> > -- idnits reports some issues, please check.
> >
> 
> I have cleaned up all idnits in the enclosed version, as follows:
> 
> idnits 2.12.12
> 
> tmp/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt:
> 
>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Checking nits according to
> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
> references
>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> 
>   -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
> 'ATTRIBUTE-BNF'
> 
> 
>      Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).
> 
> n.b. We have ignored one comment, as 'ATTRIBUTE-BNF' needs to be
> normative reference.
> 
> > -- section 1:
> >
> > It would be helpful to include an explicit definition of " non-
> > Penultimate Hop Popping behavior" somewhere in the introduction.
> 
> We have added it in the enclosed version (v9).
> 
> >
> > -- section 1, paragraph 2: "P2MP"
> >
> > Please expand on first mention. I see you did in the abstract, but it
> > should be redone in the body.
> >
> 
> We have added RSVP-TE point-to-multipoint (P2MP) in the introduction
> too.
> 
> > -- section 2.2, last paragraph: "w.r.t."
> >
> > Please spell out
> >
> 
> Spelled out.
> 
> > -- section 3: First paragraph: " Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a
> > variable of attacks on the label assigned by the Egress node. "
> >
> > Is "variable" the correct word?
> >
> 
> It seems to describe the sentence well. We are open to any suggestion.
> 
> > -- IANA Considerations:
> >
> > Please include the explicit names of the registry to be changed.
> >
> 
> Added Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
> Parameters registry
> 
> > -- 6.1, "[RFC 2119]"
> >
> > The space between RFC and 2119 confused idnits, and may confuse other
> > tools.
> >
> 
> Adrian also pointed out this. It is fixed in the enclosed version.
> 
> > -- 6.1, [RFC5920]
> >
> > This is an informational draft. Does the reference need to be
> normative?
> >
> 
> Adrian also pointed out this. It is fixed in the enclosed version.
> 
> > -- general:
> >
> > I am unable to read the title without thinking of this:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hop_on_Pop  :-)
> 
> LOL :)

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to