Sorry, ignore below, hit send by mistake....
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Meral, > > Thanks for your review. See below: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Meral Shirazipour > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for >> draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see >> the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you >> may receive. >> >> >> Document: draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-03 >> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour >> Review Date: June-18-2012 >> IETF LC End Date: June-20-2012 >> IESG Telechat date: June-21-2012 >> >> >> Summary: >> The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, however I >> have a few comments. >> >> >> >> Minor issues: >> >> TRILL-PORT-VER sub-TLV should be "PORT-TRILL-VER" sub-TLV.(there are a few >> occurrences) > > > >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> - Suggestion: [Page 6], line 2, spell out first occurrence LSP >> >> >> >> - Suggestion: [Page 6], line 5, "overload bit on" ----> "overload bit set" >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 6], Section 2.1, line 5, add a comma "," after >> "traffic engineered frames" >> >> >> >> - Typo:[Page 6], last word, "contain" --missing s--> "contains" >> >> >> >> - Suggestion: [Page 7], Section 2.2, line 2, spell out first occurrence of >> "Reverse Path Forwarding Check" and then use "RPFC" in the rest of the >> document. >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, line 5, sentence starting with >> "RB2 MUST advertise ...": we could omit the second occurrence of "it might >> use" in that sentence. >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 10], Section 2.4.2.3, 3rd line from last, "end >> stations connected to RB": "a RB" or "RBs"? >> >> >> >> - Typo: [Page 11], Section 3.1,"( j, k)" --remove extra space--> "(j, k)" >> >> >> >> - Suggestion: [Page 11], Section 3.2, "already in flight" ----> "already in >> transmission" >> >> >> >> - Typo [Page 12]:"many multi-destination frame"--missing s--> "many >> multi-destination frames" >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 13], Point 4. , Sentence 2: suggested clarification: >> >> "It does so by checking LSPs it receives and updating its link state >> database for any of its nicknames held with higher priority by another TRILL >> Switch that is IS-IS reachable." >> >> >> >> - Typo [Page 14]:"unicast Channel message"--missing s-->"unicast Channel >> messages" >> >> >> >> - Typo [Page 16]: Section 5.2,"Routeing" ----> "Routing" >> >> >> >> - Suggestion:[Page 16],last sentence, suggestion: "This safety margin is >> called "Margin" below." >> >> >> >> - Typo [Page 18]:"a specified in [RFC6325]"--missing s-->"as specified in >> [RFC6325]" >> >> >> >> - Suggestion: [Page 19], spell out first occurrence of EISS >> >> >> >> - Suggestion:[Page 21], Point 1, not clear what the new text becomes. >> Suggestion: refer to last paragraph of section 3.1 instead of paragraph >> before 3.2, and propose the new sentence. >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 21], Point 2, it is not clear what the change is to >> section 3.2 of RFC6327. >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 21], Point 3, it would be clearer to say "bullet A9 is >> added" (if this is an event like the rest of the bullets in section 3.3 of >> RFC6327) >> >> >> >> - Clarification:[Page 22], section 10.1,"disagreement over the Designated >> VLAN or the like". Suggestion: replace the term "or the like" with other >> examples or remove the term. >> >> >> >> -Typo: [Page 22], section 10.1, "each others frames"---->"each other's >> frames" >> >> >> >> -Typo: [Page 24], "DRB SHOULD NOT appointed"---->"DRB SHOULD NOT appoint", >> "an VLAN"---->"a VLAN", "RBridged"---->"RBridge" >> >> >> >> -Clarification:[Page 25], Section 11, Point 1, "The previously reserved", >> reference to document. >> >> >> >> - Clarification: [page 19/page 27], Informative References, reference [802], >> to verify which standard we want to refer to for Canonical Format Indicator: >> >> If it is "IEEE Std 802-2001: IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area >> Networks: Overview and Architecture", then the date should be 7 February >> 2001." >> >> However this specific document does not define CIF. You may want to refer to >> 802.1Q-2005. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] > >> Thanks, >> Meral >> >> >> --- >> Meral Shirazipour >> Ericsson >> Research >> www.ericsson.com _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
