Dear Mohamed,
The author team has trouble working through your review document.
The PDF you provided basically is a series of screenshots of what seems
to be a proprietary document format. The .doc URL gives a HTTP 404
error. Changing the URL by appending a x ('.doc' -> '.docx') leads to
what seems to be a zipfile which contains an XML with a proprietary
structure which is not easy to read without proprietary tooling.
- It is not possible to reference the internet-draft's text your comments
are about by line number.
- I am unable to copy+paste from the redline comments from the PDF.
I'm sure that in a Microsoft Windows operating system environment your
review document approach is convenient to work with, but in this context
you have to collaborate with people who are not using Microsoft products.
In short - the review delivery format you've chosen makes it extremely
hard to coordinate and collaboratively work through whatever you think
needs changing.
I ask that you do one of the following three things:
* Open as many Github issues as you'd like (it seems you have 66
comments) at the following URL: https://github.com/mxsasha/nrtmv4
You can click lines in the RFC7998 formatted .xml file and reference
these in new issues directly on github if needed. You also may provide
pull-requests directly, but the author team is happy to prepare the
pull-requests themselves based on your Github issues.
or,
* Start a new email thread for each of the 66 issues you perceive, and
send them one by one to [email protected]. Please prefix each subject with
'nrtmv4' (or some other descriptive marker). This approach might be a
burden on the WG mailing list readers.
or,
* Write one (long) email to [email protected] where you cite the
internet-draft text you'd like to comment on and then provide your
comments on the citation. Perhaps place '--------' markers between the
individual comments so it is clear when one comment starts and ends.
My personal preference would be to use Github issues, but one of the
email options certainly is fine too.
I apologize for any extra work this might cause you. However, please
realize that the 'printed PDF of Microsoft Word document with redlines'
approach apparently causes such an obstacle in the workflow of a
multi-author team that we've been unable to make real progress in
coordinating a respond to your review.
Sorry it took so long to conclude that the problem in addressing your
comments is logistical in nature.
Kind regards,
Job
speaking as co-author NRTM v4 draft
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:27:36PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for the effort put into this well-written document. I
> enjoyed reading it.
>
> SPECIAL THANKS to the authors/implementers for the exemplary
> implementation report. Also, thanks to Paolo for the shepherded
> writeup.
>
> After reading the spec, I think that we need to have some
> considerations about how we expect protocol maintenance to be
> undertaken in the future, for example,
>
> * Do we expect defining new attributes/values while keeping the same
> protocol version?
> * Do we allow for defining new attributes in future extensions?
> * When it makes sense to bump the version?
>
> Likewise, I think that we will need to create some IANA registries for
> the maintenance of the protocol. For example, have a registry to track
> NRTM versions? register the supported parameters and the method(s)
> they apply to? Etc.
>
> More comments, suggestions, edits, nits, etc. can be found at:
>
>
> * pdf:
> https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-07-rev%20Med.pdf
> * doc:
> https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-07-rev%20Med.doc
>
> Please let me know if any clarification is needed.
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
