Christer, thank you for your review. Authors, thanks for taking on board his comment about Section 4.
I have entered a DISCUSS and COMMENT ballot position based on my own review of the document. Alissa > On Sep 29, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Christer Holmberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > >> We discussed your first comment and we agree with Toerless's response. We >> believe that the intro does express the intent and purpose of this BCP >> adequately. Based on your second comment, we have changed the title of >> Section 4 to "Functional Guidelines". The new version has been uploaded. > > Ok. Thanks! > > Regards, > > Christer > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Toerless Eckert [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 2:59 PM >> To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of >> draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10 >> >> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 12:16:18PM +0000, Christer Holmberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.o >>> rg_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=4Z >>> 9x1ZAReZp_mJahI6h9bQ&m=Yk2i9Ji8MOfUjKFN0Jp-3wS1nKYQtvqPqcyy5j0Rc2o&s=D >>> GgoHGkoQq2XyywjloPLLrHgVKLzBLrEJ8qSkNxKa3I&e= >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.o >>> rg_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=4Z >>> 9x1ZAReZp_mJahI6h9bQ&m=iIo_51LYIireg4AnsuBoZIWVunRNL9x6ZXHqz5Q2CGc&s=p >>> eDTnfOaiDiT8_m4J-VWJr70Nt0m41lLVGq3yYls12k&e=>> >>> >>> Minor Issues: >>> >>> Q1: The Introduction talks about the growing usage of multicast, and >>> the it begins the list what the document does. But, what is the >>> background and need for the document? Is there a problem? Are there >>> interoperability issues? At the end of the section it is said that ways >>> to improve are identified, but it is unclear exactly what needs to be >>> improved. I think it would be good to say a few words in the >>> Introduction about the issues and problems. >> >> I am a bit at a loss. This is a BCP, eg: it is meant to document current >> best practices. >> It is not meant to suggest "improvements" for protocols or the like. The >> abstract and intro do IMHO pretty well stsate the intent and purpose of >> the doc. >> >> Maybe its just surprising to you that there has so far been no document >> to describe how to deploy IP multicast interdomain, especially with the >> inclusion of of options such as GRE and AMT - and simplifying it by only >> using SSM ?? >> >> Or else: Do you have any text to propose ? >> >>> Editorial Issues: >>> >>> >>> >>> Q2: The title of section 4 is ?Supporting Functionality?. That seems a >>> little strange in my eyes. Supporting functionality of what? >>> >> All the subsections are called "<function-foobar> Guidlines", so how >> about wee call the whole section "Functional Guidelines" ? >> >> Cheers >> Toerless >> >> --- >> [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
