Hi Stephane, Draft 09 addresses my (minor) concerns. Thank you for the prompt response end for the edits.
Regards, Dan On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:46 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > The -09 has been published and should address your comment. > > Feel free to raise any additional concern. > > Brgds, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 15:29 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Genart last call review of > draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08 > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > 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-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-08 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2018-12-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > Ready > > This document analyzes the impact of using non-standardized IGP Link State > implementations resulting in non-consistent tuning of parameters in the > network > and increased possibility of creating micro-loops. It can be viewed as a > problem statement for standardized solutions like RFC 8405. > > The document is short and clear for implementers and operators familiar > with > networks running this class of protocols. Diagrams and table help in > reading > and understanding the material. > > Major issues: > > none > > Minor issues: > > none > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. In the introduction: > > > For non standardized timers, implementations are free to implement it > in any way. > > It is not obvious what 'it' means. I guess it's about different values of > timers resulting in the possibility of micro-loops creation, but it would > be > better to clarify. > > 2. It would be useful to provide short explanations that make the figures > more > clear. In fig. 1 - what do the nodes represent (routers implementing the > protocols), in fig. 2, and 3 - the abbreviations on the y axis > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
