On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 00:26, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Erik - > > Thanx for the review. > Responses inline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Erik Kline <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:30 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15 > > > > Reviewer: Erik Kline > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > 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 > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-?? > > Reviewer: Erik Kline > > Review Date: 2018-12-12 > > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the > meanings > > of > > which are defined elsewhere. > > > > Major issues: [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a > draft. > > I expect they'll get published together. > > > [Les:] The reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis (rather than > current RFC7810) was put in at the request of the AD. > You are correct that this introduces a dependency between this document > and 7810bis and this document will remain in MISSREF state until 7810bis is > published. > As both drafts are in the review process we do not expect there to be a > significant delay. > > In any case this isn't a "major" issue is it? It seems worthwhile to have > the reference be to the newer version of 7810 - and this certainly isn’t > the only case where one document is dependent on another which has yet to > be published. > > > Not a major issue for me; I marked the document as Ready with Nits. I just felt like "major" was the section where this trivially obvious observation would belong. > > Minor issues: None. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some > > readability > > cleanup, perhaps. > > > > [1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow > scan > > well > > for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of > > resources"? > > > [Les:] "state and resource availability" is fine with me. > > > [2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication > > mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly. "are assumed to > > have > > implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."? > > > [Les:] How about "assumed to support all the required..." > ?? > > If you are OK with the suggestions I will publish an updated version very > soon. > > Les > > Anything is fine. I think it just read ~funny~ to me, grammatically. "assumed to meet all security and authentication requirements", sounds good. > > I'm sure the editors will have better ideas. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
