Thanks Jim! Updated in the working copy. — Carlos.
> On May 22, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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/ >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
