Hi Stewart, On 02/07/2018 22:19, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Hi Brian > > Thank you for your review comments. Please see inline. > > On 12/06/2018 04:30, Brian Carpenter wrote: >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 >> >> 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. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2018-06-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 >> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> -------- >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Bad >> Thing. >> >> Nits: >> ----- >> >>> 1. Introduction >> ... >>> This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control >>> word in all but exceptional circumstances. >> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of >> section 4). > > The text with the MUST is > > "This document updates {{RFC4448}} to state that > where both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet > pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used." > > This is conditional on both equipments supporting the feature. > > During WG discussion there was a lot of discussion on the degree to > which we would mandate the migration to CW. The problem is that > the use of the CW has hardware implications. At one stage we went > so far as to recommend the the phasing out of equipment that could > not support the CW, but we got strong pushback from a specialist part > of the vendor community. This led us to a compromise position where > we RECOMMEND the use of the CW, but only mandate that the CW be > used if it is available in the equipment used at both ends of > the PW.
Fair enough, but the text doesn't quite say that. OLD: This document updates [RFC4448] to state that where both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used. NEW: This document updates [RFC4448] to state that both the ingress PE and the egress PE SHOULD support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, and that if supported the CW MUST be used. Regards Brian > >>> 3. Background >> ... >>> A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this >>> problem: >>> >>> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html >> No, it's no longer recent. How about: >> >> For example, a posting on the N email list highlighted this >> problem: > > I have changed the text to: > > A posting on the NANOG email list highlighted this problem: > > >> >>> 7. Operational Considerations >>> >>> CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be >>> subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. >> That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: >> >> A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the PW. >> The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. > This now says: > > In some cases, the inclusion of a CW in the PW is determined by > equipment configuration. Furthermore, it is possible that the default > configuration in such cases is to disable use of the CW. > > - Stewart > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art