Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

2020-08-25 Thread Alissa Cooper 
Christer, thanks for your review. Stephane, thanks for your response. I entered 
a No Objection ballot. Ben has flagged the IANA considerations issue in his 
ballot.

Alissa

> On Jul 14, 2020, at 8:50 AM, Christer Holmberg 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephane,
> 
>> Thanks for your comments.
>> For your information, this document is just a revision of RFC5549, so 99,9% 
>> of the text is just copy/paste from the existing RFC.
>> Of course, we can improve things.
>> 
>> I'll take care of your comments for a next revision.
>> For the IANA section, as IANA will not have any action, I would prefer 
>> keeping the existing text from RFC5549. We can also let other people comment 
>> on that point.
> 
> In that case, shouldn't you at least update the reference (from RFC5549 to 
> this document) in the IANA registry? 
> 
> But, as the document obsoletes RFC5549, I would personally include the 
> complete registration text in this document - even if it is just copy/paste 
> from RFC5549.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker  
> Sent: vendredi 10 juillet 2020 00:17
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; 
> b...@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> 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
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2020-07-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I 
> only have a couple of editorial nits.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues: N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where 
> the "This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second 
> paragraph.
> 
> Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying 
> "This document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be 
> explicit about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract.
> 
> Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol"
> terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address"
> terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether 
> the terminology can be more consistent.
> 
> Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry 
> table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) 
> are indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, 
> please indicate the IANA registry name.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

2020-07-14 Thread Christer Holmberg 
Hi Stephane,

>Thanks for your comments.
>For your information, this document is just a revision of RFC5549, so 99,9% of 
>the text is just copy/paste from the existing RFC.
>Of course, we can improve things.
>
>I'll take care of your comments for a next revision.
>For the IANA section, as IANA will not have any action, I would prefer keeping 
>the existing text from RFC5549. We can also let other people comment on that 
>point.

In that case, shouldn't you at least update the reference (from RFC5549 to this 
document) in the IANA registry? 

But, as the document obsoletes RFC5549, I would personally include the complete 
registration text in this document - even if it is just copy/paste from RFC5549.

Regards,

Christer




-Original Message-
From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker  
Sent: vendredi 10 juillet 2020 00:17
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; 
b...@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Almost Ready

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

.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2020-07-09
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I only 
have a couple of editorial nits.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where the 
"This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second paragraph.

Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying "This 
document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be explicit 
about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract.

Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol"
terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address"
terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether 
the terminology can be more consistent.

Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry 
table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) are 
indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, please 
indicate the IANA registry name.



___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

2020-07-10 Thread slitkows.ietf 
Hi Christer,

Thanks for your comments.
For your information, this document is just a revision of RFC5549, so 99,9% of 
the text is just copy/paste from the existing RFC.
Of course, we can improve things.

I'll take care of your comments for a next revision.
For the IANA section, as IANA will not have any action, I would prefer keeping 
the existing text from RFC5549. We can also let other people comment on that 
point.

Stephane


-Original Message-
From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker  
Sent: vendredi 10 juillet 2020 00:17
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; 
b...@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Almost Ready

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

.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2020-07-09
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I only 
have a couple of editorial nits.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1. In the Abstract, I suggest the split the text into 2 paragrahps, where the 
"This document specifies..." sentence is the beginning of the second paragraph.

Q2. In the Introduction section, in the last paragraph, instead of saying "This 
document specifies the extensions necessary to do so." I suggest to be explicit 
about what the document specifies - similar to the Abstract.

Q3. The document uses "IPvX Network Layer Protocol" and "IPvX Protocol"
terminology. Similarly, the document uses "IPvX" and "IPvX Address"
terminology. Unless there is a good reason, I suggest do double check whether 
the terminology can be more consistent.

Q4. In the IANA Considerations section, I suggest to use the IANA registry 
table format, where the different values (Value, Description and Reference) are 
indicated, e.g., as in Section 7 of RFC 8654. Also similar to 8654, please 
indicate the IANA registry name.



___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art