Joel, Thanks!
Tom Taylor’s review (of -03) was already addressed in -04. https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt> Thanks, — Carlos. > On May 9, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > from Tom Taylor's opsdir review (looks like it's being addressed > already) > > My apologies -- I let this slip way past due date. This is a review of > operational aspects of this document, primarily for use by the OPS area > ADs in their evaluation of the document. > > Summary: this document describes a commonly encountered set of > implemented procedures for handling fragmentation of GRE packets. The > described procedures include configuration options. The document is > well-written and ready to go subject to the following observations, all > of which are trivial except for the second minor issue noted below. > > Tom Taylor > > 1) Very minor issue: there is no advice to the operator on coordinating > the configuration of the ingress and egress nodes. Section 3.3.2 assumes > that configuration is coordinated (i.e., fragmented GRE delivery packets > are reassembled at egress). Section 3.4 simply presents the option. This > could be fixed by changing the relevant sentence of 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 > as follows: > > OLD > If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE > egress. > > NEW > If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE > egress if the latter is configured to do so. > > 2) Minor issue: 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 final paragraph: > s/delivery header/delivery packet/ > > > > Typos: > > Last paragraph before Sec. 3, second line: s/lager/larger/ > > 3.3.1.1 second paragraph, last line on page 5: > s/an Next-hop MTU/a Next-Hop MTU value/ > > 3.3.1.2 first line: s/send/sends/ > > Sec. 5 last paragraph, fourth last line: s/includes/include/ > > _______________________________________________ > OPS-DIR mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
