Robert, thanks for your review. I agree about the heartbeat requirements and said so in my No Objection ballot. Tiru, thanks for your response on the other point.
Alissa > On Feb 14, 2019, at 1:08 AM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Please see inline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Sparks <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:47 PM >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dots-requirements-18 >> >> This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or >> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> 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-dots-requirements-18 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 2019-02-13 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-23 >> IESG Telechat date: 2019-02-21 >> >> Summary: Ready, but with a process issue for the shepherd and AD to consider. >> >> This version addressed all of my comments on version -16. Thank you. >> >> However, the diff shows that a large number of SHOULDs were changed to >> MUSTs. >> I'm guessing that was in response to a comment in the TSVART review of -16. > > Yup. > >> This large scale substitution makes me worry - are they really the right >> adjustments? Has the group reviewed and agreed to these normative changes? > > The WG has not identified any qualifying exceptional conditions for these > requirements when the discussing the DOTS protocol and requirements drafts, > hence I updated > these requirements to use MUST. > >> >> As a nit, I'll note that the additional description of heartbeating creeps >> into >> specifying protocol rather than requirements. > > The additional text in SIG-004 is added to justify the reason for using > "SHOULD". > > Cheers, > -Tiru > >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
