Thanks for your review, Tom. New version looks ok to me, do you agree Tom? And 
thank you Christopher for the changes!

Jari

On 13 May 2015, at 17:51, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom
> 
> Thanks for those detailed and useful comments. The soon to be submitted next 
> draft will address all of them.
> 
> Christopher
> 
> -- 
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> T:  +44 (0)1245 242194  |  E: [email protected]
> 
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, 
> Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
> www.baesystems.com/ai
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451
> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 10 May 2015 23:37
> To: Gen Art; Dearlove, Christopher (UK); T. Clausen; Justin Dean; Alvaro 
> Retana; [email protected]
> Subject: Pre-telechat review of draft-ietf-manet-tlv-naming-02
> 
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message 
> originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or 
> from the internet.
> Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any 
> attachments or reply.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on 
> reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This was supposed to be done by May 1, but got buried in my Inbox. My 
> apologies.
> 
> 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-manet-tlv-naming-02
> Reviewer: Tom Taylor
> Review Date:        10 May 2015
> IETF LC End Date:    1 May 2015
> IESG Telechat date: 14 May 2015
> 
> Summary: This document has minor issues that need to be resolved, along with 
> a few nits.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 1. If the requested TLV Type does not immediately define all the 
> corresponding type extensions for versions of that type, the Expert Reviewer 
> or IANA will be faced with the task of choosing an appropriate Type value 
> within which to place the extension. No guidance has been provided for this 
> purpose. What is the intention?
> 
> 2. No IANA Considerations have been provided for the following registries:
>     TC Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types
>     TC Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types
>     HELLO Message-Type-specific Message TLV Types
>     HELLO Message-Type-specific Address Block TLV Types
>     SMF_TYPE Message TLV Type Extensions
>     SMF_NBR_TYPE Address Block TLV Type Extensions
> 
> 
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Sec. 1, third from last paragraph: s/consisteng/consistent/
> 
> Sec. 3.1, s/reguested/requested/ (both outer bullets, first line of each)
> 
> IANA Considerations, following Table 11: the current registry name is 
> "ICV[TIMESTAMP] Address TLV Type Extensions" (missing the word "Block"). 
> This is inconsistent with the other address block TLV types. I suggest, in 
> place of the current text for these two extension registries, text to resolve 
> the inconsistency, as follows:
> 
> OLD
> 
>    The IANA Registry "ICV[TIMESTAMP] Address Block TLV Type Extensions"
>    is unchanged.
> 
> NEW
> 
>    The IANA Registry "ICV[TIMESTAMP] Address TLV Type Extensions" is
>    unchanged except to add the word "Block" after "Address" in the
>    registry name.
> 
> IANA Considerations, Table 13 and preceding text: the current registry name 
> is "NBR_ADDR_TYPE ....". This document refers to it as "NBR_ADDR_TYPES ...." 
> (i.e., plural). The inconsistency needs to be resolved.
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Reply via email to