Looks good except in section 6 there are couple typos: "BUilding from the categorization of [RFC7498], we can largely divide security consdierations in four areas:²
1. Change BUilding to Building. 2. Change consdierations to considerations. Jim On 5/21/15, 11:50 PM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Tom, > >All great comments ‹ thank you. > >All incorporated into our working copy (diffs attached here FYI) ‹ we can >submit when Jim/Alia signal. > >Thanks, > >‹ Carlos. > > > > >> On May 21, 2015, at 8:53 PM, Tom Taylor <[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-sfc-architecture-08 >> Reviewer: Tom Taylor >> Review Date: 2015-05-17 >> IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-25 >> IESG Telechat date: 2015-05-28 >> >> Summary: >> >> There is one IPR declaration, which was repeated for two predecessor >>documents but not for the current draft. The draft is basically ready to >>go with a very minor issue and a few nits. >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> >> The Security Considerations section rightly mentions the need to avoid >>leaking SFC information. However, it does this under the heading of >>"Classification". Could I suggest that the first two sentences of the >>"Classification" bullet be separated out under the title "Boundaries"? >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> Sec. 1.2, third bullet from the bottom: spell out SFF on first use, and >>give a forward reference to the next section, i.e., >> "...interconnect the Service Function Forwarders (SFFs, see next >> section) ..." >> >> Sec. 1.2, next bullet: according to the RFC Editor Style Guide >>abbreviations list, FIB and RIB are not well-known abbreviations, hence >>need to be spelled out. >> >> Sec. 1.3, Service Function Forwarder, last line: spell out SFP? I know >>the definition is just a few lines down, so this is a maybe. >> >> Alternative suggestion: introduce a Section 1.3.1 at the beginning of >>the section, as follows: >> >> "1.3.1 Key Abbreviations >> >> The terms listed here are defined in Section 1.3.2. >> >> SF Service Function >> SFC Service Function Chain or Service Function Chaining >> SFF Service Function Forwarder >> SFP Service Function Path >> RSP Rendered Service Path" >> >> Sec. 2.1, second para., third line from bottom: s/the the/the/ >> > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
