Hi, Elwyn, Many thanks again. I am more than happy to accommodate these editorials and further improve the doc.
Expanded acronyms (in addition to L2TPv3, there was one “BFD” missing, as well as the Title and abbrev). I updated the ‘out of scope’ text, but, finally, I did not modify the Abstract — while I understand RFC numbers in a non-citation fashion are OK (although semantically they play as a citation), I’d prioritize consistency with the other S-BFD documents (OSPF, ISIS). Just posted a new rev: URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-04.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-04 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-04 Enjoy your weekend, — Carlos. From: Elwyn Davies <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:30 PM To: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: General area reviewing team <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-03 Hi, Carlos. Thanks for the response. First: a remaining acronym: L2TPv3 needs to be expanded on first use in the Abstract. Second: Although citations are not allowed in the Abstract, this doesn't prevent explicit RFC numbers in a non-citation form. So, yes, [RFC5880][I-D.draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base] is not allowed but '(RFC 5880, RFC <number allocated to draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base>)' is fine Finally: I took a quick look around the various other S-SFD in 'xxx' drafts, of which the IS-IS is already in the RFC Editor queue and see that the 'out of scope' words for the multiple discriminator case appears to be the selected way forwards - so the sentence you added is good. I am afraid I still can't make much sense of the sentence after it: When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised, the mechanism to choose a subset of specific discriminator(s) is out of scope for this document. Something being chosen is a mechanism and this is out of scope... The form used in the IS-IS draft: When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case is out of scope for this document. seems clearer to me. Cheers, Elwyn On 13/04/2016 20:35, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: Elwyn, This is a great review. Thank you. Please see inline. Deborah, We will be queueing edits, let me know when you’d want us to post an updated revision. On Apr 10, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Apologies for the slightly late review - I was stricken by a stomach bug. I hope you are feeling better! For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-03.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2016/04/10 IETF LC End Date: 2016/04/05 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: Almost ready. There are a number of acronyms that need expansion and I am unclear how an implementation of S-BFD getting its discriminators via L2TPv3 would know what entities the advertised discriminators (whether one or many) should be associated with. This probably just needs a single sentence to sort it out, but I found the existing wording to be either inappropriate or just plain wrong. These items, with the exception of the acronym expansion, have already been discussed. See below line-by-line responses to each of these potential issues, as well as a set of HTML diffs from the working copy, FYI. Nearly Major Issue: Question: The format allows multiple discriminators to be sent in one message. Looking at the S-BFD base draft (s3), it is implied that if a S-BFD module is dealing with multiple discriminators they would be associated with multiple different entities. How would the receiver know what entity each of the discriminators was supposed to be associated with? It seems to me that the receiver would want to know this but I may not have understood what is going on here. I guess one way would be to use a part of the discriminator bit pattern but I don't know if this might make it more difficult to achieve uniqueness in a domain. Alternatively a purpose provided field could be sent in addition to each discriminator, or different AVP IDs used for well-known purposes. Thanks for raising this — although this was discussed and addressed, it might not be self-evident. See the next comment. The sentence at the end of para 4 of s2.1: When multiple S-BFD discriminators are advertised, the mechanism to choose a subset of specific discriminator(s) is out of scope for this document. may be associated with this question but I am not sure Indeed, this is the relevant paragraph. This paragraph was also added to other related documents (ISIS, OSPF), and goes hand-in-hand with the following paragraph from draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-08: The use of multiple S-BFD discriminators by a single network node is therefore discouraged until a means of learning the mapping is defined. Now, that said, it is clear that if it created confusion in this review, this can also create future confusion. (1) which end is supposed to be choosing - is the Initiator choosing which to advertise or the Responder choosing which to 'do something with', and (2) it seems to me that the L2TPv3 receiver or its associated S-BFD module would be deciding on some well-defined basis which entities were associated with which designator rather than just making an arbitrary choice. I suggest that a sentence indicating how the association of discriminators to entities is done (or even that it needs to be done but how it is done is out of scope) needs to be added, and the sentence above needs to be clarified or subsumed in this new part (unless either of the more draconian alternatives suggested above is thought to be appropriate). To really minimize the chance of that future confusion, I agree with your suggestion. I added such sentence and reworded the paragraph a bit. Further comments on the proposed text most welcome. Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Abstract: I'm afraid you are going to have expand the acronyms AVP, L2TP and BFD here. References to RFC 5880 and the new S-BFD draft RFC would also be helpful - in the form "(RFC 5880, I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base)”. Acronyms expanded. Since the Abstract should not have citations, I am hesitant to add anything else. It is clearly in the Introduction. s1.1: The L2TP message names used in s2.1 and elsewhere (ICRQ, ICRP, OCRQ, OCRP) need to be expanded - here would be as good as anywhere. S1.1 already specifies expectations to readers, which include these L2TP messages: 1.1. Terminology The reader is expected to be very familiar with the terminology and protocol constructs defined in S-BFD (see Section 2 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]) and L2TPv3 (see Section 1.3 of [RFC3931]). But sure, will expand on first use as well. s2.1: Need to expand AVP and ID. Seems a bit repetitive, but done. Thanks, — Carlos.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
