Hi Ross- Changing "variable" to "variety" would be good. However, at present state, do you want me to update the draft with this or possibly other changes, or RFC editor will take care of the changes.
Please advise. Thanks Regards ... Zafar > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Callon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:20 PM > 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
