Alexey, Donald: Many thanks for the review & the updates! Jari
On 06 Aug 2014, at 07:42, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > These changes have been made a new version -06 has been posted. > > Thanks, > Donald > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Alexey Melnikov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/08/2014 18:16, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alexey, >> >> Hi Donald, >> >>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Alexey Melnikov >>> <[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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you >>>> may receive. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-05 >>>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov >>>> Review Date: 3 August 2014 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 21 July 2014 >>>> IESG Telechat date: 7 August 2014 >>>> >>>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC. >>>> [Ready with nits] >>>> >>>> Major issues: None >>>> >>>> Minor issues: >>>> >>>> Section 6.4: who allocated opcodes? I.e. is there a registry? >>> >>> These OAM OpCodes were created by and originally all under the control >>> of IEEE 802.1; however, 802.1 allocated the block of 32 OpCodes from >>> 32 to 63 to ITU-T as documented in [802.1Q]. I don't think ITU-T >>> maintains an explicit registry other than the listing of assigned >>> OpCodes out of their range that appears in [Y.1731] but I could be >>> wrong. >>> >>> Perhaps a sentence could be added to the end of Section 6.4 such as >>> "These OpCodes are from the range of values that has been allocated by >>> IEEE 802.1 [802.1Q] for control by ITU-T." >> >> I think that would be very helpful. Otherwise there is a question why there >> is no IANA registry for these and your extra sentence would address that. >> >>>> Nits: >>>> >>>> I think it would be better to say that all "Reserved" fields are set to 0 >>>> by >>>> the sender and ignored by the receiver. >>> >>> I'll check with the other authors on that. >> >> Thank you. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
