Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

2018-12-13 Thread Erik Kline
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 00:26, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 
wrote:

> Erik -
>
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik Kline 
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:30 PM
> > To: gen-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
> > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
> >
> > Reviewer: Erik Kline
> > 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
> >
> > .
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-??
> > Reviewer: Erik Kline
> > Review Date: 2018-12-12
> > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the
> meanings
> > of
> > which are defined elsewhere.
> >
> > Major issues:  [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a
> draft.
> >  I expect they'll get published together.
> >
> [Les:] The reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis (rather than
> current RFC7810) was put in at the request of the AD.
> You are correct that this introduces a dependency between this document
> and 7810bis and this document will remain in MISSREF state until 7810bis is
> published.
> As both drafts are in the review process we do not expect there to be a
> significant delay.
>
> In any case this isn't a "major" issue is it? It seems worthwhile to have
> the reference be to the newer version of 7810 - and this certainly isn’t
> the only case where one document is dependent on another which has yet to
> be published.
>
>
>
Not a major issue for me; I marked the document as Ready with Nits.  I just
felt like "major" was the section where this trivially obvious observation
would belong.


> > Minor issues: None.
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some
> > readability
> > cleanup, perhaps.
> >
> > [1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow
> scan
> > well
> > for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of
> > resources"?
> >
> [Les:] "state and resource availability" is fine with me.
>
> > [2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication
> > mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly.  "are assumed to
> > have
> > implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."?
> >
> [Les:] How about "assumed to support all the required..."
> ??
>
> If you are OK with the suggestions I will publish an updated version very
> soon.
>
>Les
>
>
Anything is fine. I think it just read ~funny~ to me, grammatically.
"assumed to meet all security and authentication requirements", sounds
good.


> > I'm sure the editors will have better ideas.
> >
>
>
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


[Gen-art] Review Assignments

2018-12-13 Thread Jean Mahoney
Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

For telechat 2018-12-20

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Jari Arkko Telechat  2018-11-20 draft-wilde-sunset-header-08 *
Fernando Gont  Last Call 2018-11-28 draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc-04
Robert Sparks  Telechat  2018-10-08 draft-ietf-ntp-bcp-10 *
Peter Yee  Telechat  2018-11-20 draft-wilde-service-link-rel-08 *

Last calls:

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Jari Arkko Last Call 2018-12-24 draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-12
Jari Arkko Last Call 2018-11-27 
draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-02
Stewart Bryant Last Call 2018-12-21 draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21
Brian CarpenterLast Call 2018-12-27 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01
Elwyn Davies   Last Call 2018-12-27 draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10
Vijay Gurbani  Last Call 2018-12-03 
draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-06
Wassim Haddad  Last Call 2018-10-29 
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-12
Christer Holmberg  Last Call 2018-12-11 
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-05
Matthew Miller Last Call 2018-12-14 
draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11
Francesca PalombiniLast Call 2018-12-18 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06
Pete Resnick   Last Call 2018-12-18 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05
Ines RoblesLast Call 2018-12-18 draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08
David Schinazi Last Call 2018-12-18 draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-01
Meral Shirazipour  Last Call 2018-12-20 
draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04
Dale WorleyLast Call 2018-12-24 draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-03

* Other revision previously reviewed
** This revision already reviewed

Next in the reviewer rotation:

  Linda Dunbar
  Francis Dupont
  Roni Even
  Tim Evens
  Fernando Gont
  Vijay Gurbani
  Wassim Haddad
  Joel Halpern
  Christer Holmberg
  Russ Housley

The LC and Telechat review templates are included below:
---

-- Begin LC Template --
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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

-- End LC Template --

-- Begin Telechat Template --
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

.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

-- End Telechat Template --


___
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-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

2018-12-13 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Erik -

Thanx for the review.
Responses inline.

> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Kline 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:30 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
> 
> Reviewer: Erik Kline
> 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
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-??
> Reviewer: Erik Kline
> Review Date: 2018-12-12
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the meanings
> of
> which are defined elsewhere.
> 
> Major issues:  [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a 
> draft.
>  I expect they'll get published together.
> 
[Les:] The reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis (rather than current 
RFC7810) was put in at the request of the AD. 
You are correct that this introduces a dependency between this document and 
7810bis and this document will remain in MISSREF state until 7810bis is 
published.
As both drafts are in the review process we do not expect there to be a 
significant delay.

In any case this isn't a "major" issue is it? It seems worthwhile to have the 
reference be to the newer version of 7810 - and this certainly isn’t the only 
case where one document is dependent on another which has yet to be published.


> Minor issues: None.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some
> readability
> cleanup, perhaps.
> 
> [1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow scan
> well
> for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of
> resources"?
> 
[Les:] "state and resource availability" is fine with me.

> [2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication
> mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly.  "are assumed to
> have
> implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."?
>
[Les:] How about "assumed to support all the required..."
??

If you are OK with the suggestions I will publish an updated version very soon.

   Les

 
> I'm sure the editors will have better ideas.
> 

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