Thanks for your review, Christer. I see that a new version has been posted with at least some of these edits in - thank you Matthew for that.
I have placed a no-obj position on this document for the upcoming IESG telechat. Jari On Nov 27, 2013, at 3:24 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > Your suggested ways to address my issues look good. I assumed that some of > the terms were well known, but raised the issue just in case :) > > The cases where you have a different opinion (e.g. usage of roman numbers) > are very minor editorial ones, so no reason spending time arguing about that > :) > > Regards, > > Christer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 27. marraskuuta 2013 12:33 > To: Christer Holmberg; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19 > > Christer > > Thank you for your review and comments. Please see below. > > Matthew > > On 24/11/2013 15:36, "Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]> > 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 >> <https://rvi.se.ericsson.net/owa/,DanaInfo=mail.internal.ericsson.com,S >> SL+ >> redir.aspx?C=vCr1L8PWQUqCZeSAn6cKI_Abm6K8vNAI1hJJwcnXe8VAikdG2PcMrstLsz >> aJe >> Ao7bR8W3uA2uu0.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwiki.tools.ietf.org%2farea%2fgen%2ftra >> c%2 >> fwiki%2fGenArtfaq>> >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19 >> >> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg >> >> Review Date: 24 November 2013 >> >> IETF LC End Date: 27 November 2013 >> >> IETF Telechat Date: N/A >> >> Summary: The document is well written, but there are some minor >> editorial nits that the authors may want to consider addressing before >> publication. >> >> Major Issues: None >> >> Minor Issues: None >> >> Editorial nits: >> >> Abstract: >> ----------- >> >> Q_A_1: >> >> The first sentence says: >> >> "There is a requirement for service providers to be able to extend the >> reach of pseudowires (PW) across multiple Packet Switched Network >> domains." >> >> I would suggest to replace that with the sentence you are using later >> in the Introduction: >> >> "RFC 5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending >> the reach of pseudowires across multiple Packet Switched Network >> (PSN) domains." >> >> ...assuming, of course, that you are referring to the requirements in >> 5254 :) >> >> >> > > MB> Agreed. I¹ll make that change. > >> >> Section 1: >> ------------ >> >> Q_1_1: >> >> In the text, and in Figure 1, you use "CE" and "PE" terminology, but >> they are nowhere extended (e.g. on first occurance). In addition, "CE" >> is not defined in the document, and it is unclear whether the >> definition exists in some other document. > > These are well known terms for L2VPNs, but I agree they should be expanded on > first use, regardless. The terminology section states that the terminology > from RFC5659 is used. In addition, RFC5659 references RFC3916 and RFC > >> >> Q_1_2: >> >> Should MPLS be extended on first occurance? > > MB> It¹s a well known term, but I will expand. > >> >> Q_1_3: >> >> Should there be a reference to MPLS? > > MB> I don¹t think so. MPLS is well known and isn¹t even referenced from > RFC5659 and RFC3916 (the MS-PW and PW architectures). > > >> >> Q_1_4: >> >> There is text saying "Attachment Identifier (AII)" and later in the >> document (section 3.2) "Attachment Identifier (AI)". Please make sure >> that both "AII" and "AI" are correctly extended (e.g. on first >> occurance). > > MB> Agreed. AII should read ŒAttachment Individual Identifier¹. I¹ll > double check these throughout. > >> >> >> Section 2: >> ------------ >> >> Q_2_1: >> >> I suggest to say "This document describes..." rather than "In this >> document we describe...". > > MB> Agreed > >> >> >> Q_2_2: >> >> Should "LDP" and/or "TLV" be extended on first occurance? > > MB> I will expand LDP, but ŒTLV¹ is so well known that it is used in > MB> most > RFCs without expansion. > >> >> Section 4: >> ------------ >> >> Q_4_1: >> >> Should there be a reference for "Target Attachment Individual >> Identifier (TAII)"? > > > MB> this is the =same as for SAII (RFC5003). I¹ll add a cross reference > where it is first used. > >> >> Q_4_2: >> >> I would suggest to not use roman numbers in the bullet list in 4.2.3. >> It will become unclear if you need to reference (in a document, or >> elsewhere) a specific >> bullet in the list. > > MB> Why is this any worse than any other method e.g. a,b,cŠ or 1,2,3...? > Wouldn¹t you just say Section 4.2.3, Bullet (ii) ? > > >> >> Section 5.1: >> -------------- >> >> Q_5_1: >> >> I think it would be useful to have a reference, and perhaps an example, >> or what is meant by "PSN mechanisms". > > MB> I can add an example of this e.g. MPLS Fast Reroute. > >> >> Q_5_2: >> >> See Q_4_2 regarding usage of roman numbers. >> >> >> Section 6: >> ------------ >> >> Q_6_1: >> >> There is a sentence saying: >> >> "However, note that the length MUST be set to 14." >> >> As the sentence contains a MUST, I would suggest to make the sentence >> more stronger, and remove "note". Perhaps simply something like: >> >> "The length value MUST be set to 14." > > MB> OK > >> >> Section 7: >> ------------ >> >> Q_7_1: >> >> The text indicates that the existing protocols may have security >> issues, but that they are not affected by this document. When I read >> it, it sounds like you are not very sure whether there are security >> issues, but you still know that they are not affected >> :) >> >> I would suggest to re-word the second sentence to something like: >> >> "The extensions defined in this document do not affect the security >> issues associated with those protocols." > > MB> Agreed, but perhaps ¹security considerations¹ rather than ¹security > issues¹ would be more accurate. > >> >> >> Section 8: >> ------------ >> >> Q_8_1: >> >> In section 8.1, s/"IANA needs to"/"IANA is requested to" > > MB> OK > >> >> Q_8_2: >> >> In section 8.2, s/"The IANA is requested to"/"IANA is requested to" > > MB> OK > >> >> >> Section 10: >> -------------- >> >> Q_10_1: >> >> I would suggest to move the paragraph to the beginning of section 11. >> Something like: >> >> "11. Acknowledgements >> >> The editors gratefully acknowledge the following additional co- >> authors of this document: Mustapha Aissaoui, Nabil Bitar, Mike >> Loomis, David McDysan, >> Chris Metz, Andy Malis, Jason Rusmeisel, Himanshu Shah, Jeff >> Sugimoto. >> >> The editors also gratefully acknowledge the input of the following >> people: Mike Duckett, Paul Doolan, Prayson Pate, Ping Pan, Vasile >> Radoaca, Yeongil Seo, Yetik Serbest, Yuichiro Wada." > > > MB> The intent was to explicitly and clearly call out people who > contributed text but were too numerous to list at the top of the draft. > I¹d therefore rather keep these in a separate section. > > >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
