Samer,

Thanks for responding to Dan.

The timing for a new revision is up to Stewart - don't take any action
until you hear from him.

Cheers,
Andy

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Samer Salam (ssalam) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thank you for your review. Please find responses inlineĊ 
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Please let us know when we can go ahead an update the draft to address the
> review comments.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samer
>
> On 2014-02-19 6:31 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dan,
>>
>>Thanks for the review (twice!).
>>
>>Authors,
>>
>>Could you please respond to Dan's review and comments?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Andy
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>><[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>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
>>>posting a
>>> new version of the draft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt
>>>
>>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>>>
>>> Review Date: 2/19/14
>>>
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2/11/14
>>>
>>> IESG Telechat date: 2/20/14
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ready with issues. I did not see any answer from the editors or
>>>shepherd to
>>> the issues raised in the IETFLC Gen-ART review and there was no
>>>revision of
>>> the document since then. Although none of the issues raised seems to be
>>> blocking, I believed that they should be considered and answered as
>>>part of
>>> the IETF Last Call Comments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a complex but well written document. It is ready, a number of
>>>minor
>>> issues need clarification and possibly editing. Some nits also may be
>>> considered to fix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Major issues:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> None
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.       The document (and the name of the protocol defined here) uses
>>>the
>>> notion of 'chassis'. However there is no definition or reference to a
>>> definition that would clarify what a 'chassis' is.
>
> Good point, will add a definition to that effect.
>
>>>
>>> 2.       In section 7.2.2.1 - I am not a fan of transferring
>>>information in
>>> text format like in the Disconnect Cause String - no interoperability
>>> results if there no agreement on a finite set of causes. Anyway - should
>>> this not be UTF-8 format?
>
> This is meant to relay information to a human user, and not intended to be
> used to take any automated actions. Will clarify that it is UTF-8.
>
>>>
>>> 3.       Similar question in Section 7.2.4 - why is Aggregator Name a
>>>text?
>>> Why not using AggregatorID as per IEEE 802.1AX?
>
> The AggregatorID is already part of the TLV. The name is to enhance human
> usability, same reason as above.
>
>>>
>>> 4.       In Section 7.2.5 - if Port Speed corresponds to the ifHighSpeed
>>> object in the IF-MIB, should not also Port (interface) name correspond
>>>to
>>> ifName truncated to 20 characters whenever possible?
>>>
>
> Agreed, will update accordingly.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.       Some acronyms need expansion at the first occurrence - e.g.
>>>POP, CO
>
> Will update the draft accordingly.
>
>>>
>>> 2.       In section 3.3/i: PE nodes MAY be collocated or remote - this
>>>MAY
>>> needs not be capitalized.
>
> Will fix.
>
>>>
>>> 3.       The first two lines in the diagram in page 16 are mis-aligned
>
> Will fix.
>
>>>
>>> 4.       The diagrams in 7.1.1., 7.1.5   end at 16-bit boundary with the
>>> last field defined for optional sub-TLVs. Is this intentional? Do they
>>> suggest that the number of octets is always 4*n + 2? What happens else?
>
> No that was not intentional. Will add text to clarify that there are no
> such assumptions.
>
>>>
>>> 5.       In section 7.3.1:' -ii. PW ID TLV or generalized PW ID TLV' I
>>>think
>>> what is meant is actually ' -ii. One of PW ID TLV or generalized PW ID
>>>TLV'
>
> Will update.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

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

Reply via email to