Francis, thanks for your review. Dino, thanks for your responses. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Sep 17, 2018, at 10:26 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This completes the review I sent last week. >> >> 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 wait for direction from your >> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.txt >> Reviewer: Francis Dupont >> Review Date: 20180911 >> IESG Telechat date: 20180927 > > Thanks for your review Francis. A new diff file for 6830bis in enclosed at > the end. > >> Summary: Ready with Nits >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> - 3 pages 4-8: some abbrevs are used before being defined *. I don't know >> a good way to fix this and anyway there are only a few specific terms >> so IMHO it is not a real problem. >> * e.g. ETR is used the entry before its definition. > > This was brought up in the RFC6830 review back in 2012. And it was decided by > everyone involved at the time to not change anything. > >> - 5.1 page 16: the I bit text is not very clear IMHO both because >> the Instance ID is not defined before section 8 and because L and I >> bits interfere. As the problem comes from RFC 6830 I propose to keep >> the current text. > > Kept. > >> >> - 10.1 pages 26 and 27: the order between nonce word and derivations >> from echo is not very consistent. If you have another reason to revisit >> the section please fix this very minor issue. >> >> - B.3 page 40: implementators -> implementors >> >> - 8.12 page 42: addreses -> addresses > > Both occurrences fixed. > >> - B.13 page 43: Reencapsulating -> Re-encapsulating >> (BTW these spelling errors are in text which should be dropped :-) > > Right, fixed anyways. > >> - as it is a RFC revision perhaps it should be fine to add some words >> about real world deployments of LISP? > > We have an entire deployment draft about this. And we had deployment > information in RFC6830 and during the IESG rewview, it was asked to be > removed. > > Dino > >> >> Regards >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <rfcdiff-6830bis.html> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
