On 6/10/14, 1:56 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thank you Robert for your review. Per my review of the -12, it looks like the
issues that you raised have been addressed. Do you agree?
Except possibly for one, which I'm leaving to the ADs.
I see you weren't copied on one of the threads - I've forwarded the last
message in it to you, and copying my last response on it here:
I think we've converged on everything but how the document is, as you
say, walking the line on what it's recommending for incremental deployment.
I still find the text inconsistent on that point, but will defer to
Adrian on whether anything needs to be done about it.
Thanks for the effort you've put into getting this finished!
RjS
Jari
On 10 Apr 2014, at 19:25, Fedyk, Don <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Robert
Thanks for your comments.
Inline [Don]
I've incorporated your feedback in the latest draft which I will distribute and
check with authors and ADs and Chairs shortly.
Don.
-----Original Message-----
From: L2vpn [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 3:41 PM
To: General Area Review Team; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11
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-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 7Apr2014
IETF LC End Date: 8Apr2014
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but
has minor issues (primarily editorial) that should be addressed.
I found this document very difficult to read. It asks the reader to hop between
sections in unusual ways (for instance, it sends the reader to the problem
statement section for details on normative behavior). I strongly encourage an
editorial pass focusing on document structure.
[Don] Will work with AD to see what can be done here.
There are many instances of SHOULD in the document where the text should just
be using prose instead. It's not always clear when an implementation would
choose to ignore the SHOULD, and what the consequences of that choice would be.
[Don] I'll check this.
The document is inconsistent about the level of support needed in the network
before trying to use this extension.
Section 5.1.2 says the assumption is everything understands it before it's
turned on. Section 6 points back to figure 2 and says to use the extension over
the pw where you administratively know the peer supports the extension, and
fall back to 4762 for everything else. Which of those did you intend?
[Don] I will clarify.
Specific comments in document order:
Section 3.2 paragraph 1: This paragraph would benefit from being broken into several.
It's hard to find its point. The SHOULD in this paragraph is probably not a 2119 SHOULD
(this section isn't defining the protocol). It would be useful in this overview to
explicitly say _why_ "This cannot be achieved with ... 4762]" at this point in
the document.
[Don] Will address this .
Section 3.2 paragraph 2: This SHOULD _is_ defining protocol - shouldn't it be
in section 5?
[Don] Agree.
Section 4.1.1 paragraph 3: It took me some time to find Z on the figure.
It might help to introduce it similar to how you introduce X.
[Don] OK
Section 4.1.2: paragraph 1: I think you meant to reference 4.1.1
[Don] Done.
Section 5: The first sentence talks about requirements in section 4.
Section 4 describes a problem using some examples but doesn't explicitly call
out requirements. Doing so would help the document.
[[Don]] Renamed Problem Space as recommended by Ben.
Last sentence in 5.1.1 (and several other places in the document):
Please add an article before "MAC Flush message". (I apologize for such a
small nit, but each of these instances made making sure I was reading what the sentence
intended significantly more difficult).
[Don] OK.
Section 5.1.2 first paragraph: This section is defining behavior - why are you
sending the reader back into the problem statement for detail on the behavior?
[Don] s/4.2/5.2/
5.1.2 paragraph 2: You meant section 6, not 5.
[Don] Done.
5.1.2 paragraph 3: I can't follow this paragraph's structure. I think you're trying to
say "An MTU-s or PE2-rs SHOULD send MAC withdraw messages as defined in [RFC4762] in
cases where the network is being upgraded and devices are not capable of understanding
the optimized MAC flush." (But if so, the next sentence is redundant.) Why is this
SHOULD?
[Don] Updated.
5.1.3 paragraph 1: Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? (Similar question for the SHOULD in
paragraph 2). It's not clear if you're trying to avoid "Some things won't implement this
spec" or "Don't do this if you haven't administratively ensured every element understands
this extension first" or something else?
[Don] Changed to MUST for optimized MAC Flush.
5.1.3 paragraph 3: You say "unless specified otherwise". Do you ever specify
otherwise? Why is this disclaimer here?
[Don] Removed.
5.1.3 last paragraph: You meant section 6 not 5.
[Don] Done.
_______________________________________________
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
