Pete,

Thanks. You're right re S.3.3.3.4.

Suggest delete/ (like the limited functionality option in Section 3.3.3.1)/

I also suggest the end of 3.3.3. needs to mention RFC6040, rather than waiting until 3.3.3.4, which otherwise looks like an afterthought.

OLD 3.3.3:
=====================================================================
                         Two different modes are defined in [RFC3168]
   for IP-in-IP tunnels and a third one in [RFC4301] for IP-in-IPsec
   tunnels.
=====================================================================
NEW 3.3.3:
=====================================================================
                         Two different modes are defined in [RFC3168]
   for IP-in-IP tunnels and a third one in [RFC4301] for IP-in-IPsec
   tunnels. [RFC6040] updates both these RFCs to rationalise them into
   one consistent approach.
=====================================================================


Agree that all identified nits need correcting.

Thanks again for your time on this.



Bob

At 04:33 29/02/2012, Pete McCann wrote:
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-08
Reviewer: Peter McCann
Review Date: 2012-02-28
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-01

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Section 3.3.3.4:
   With the normal mode, the ECN field of the inner header is copied to
   the ECN field of the outer header on encapsulation (like the limited
   functionality option in Section 3.3.3.1).
The limited functionality option says to set the outer header to not-ECT.
This seems to contradict the above statement.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 3.3.3.3:
   full-
   functionality option in Section 3.3.2.2.
I think you meant "Section 3.3.3.2".  One other place in this
paragraph needs this correction.

Section 4.2:
   The problem with 3-in-1 encoding is that the 10-codepoint does not
   survive decapsulation with the tunneling options in Section 3.3.2.1 -
   3.3.2.3.
Again, you meant 3.3.3.1 - 3.3.3.3

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to