Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03

[Zhangxian (Xian)]

Hi, Christer,

   Thank you for the detailed review. Please see my reply inline:

Cheers,
Xian

From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Sent: 2015年10月29日 17:21
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, 
please see the FAQ at 
Document:   
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date:   29 October 2015
IETF LC End Date:   9 November 2015
IETF Telechat Date:   N/A
Summary: The document is well written, and 
almost ready for publication. However, I have a few editorial issue that I’d 
like the authors to address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial Issues:

Q1:

‘RSVP-TE’ is expanded in the Abstract, but not in the main document. Please 
expand on first occurrence also in the Introduction (last paragraph).

Same comment applies to ‘LSP’.

[Xian]: Accepted.

Q2:

There is no reference for RSVP-TE.

[Xian]: Accepted. Will add.

Q3:

Would it be possible to replace the last paragraph of the Introduction with the 
Abstract text?
[Xian]: they are essentially the same, but the last paragraph in introduction 
covers the draft structure better. Unless you strongly object, I would like to 
keep it unchanged. OK?

Q4:

Does ‘GMPLS’ need to be expanded on first occurrence?
[Xian]: It is a pretty solid abbreviation for whoever needs to read for the 
technical content. But I think your suggestion is reasonable, just like we need 
to expand to RSVP-TE and LSP. Will do.

Q5:

There is no reference to ‘GMPLS’ in sections 1 and 3.
[Xian]: Point taken. Will add.

Q6:

The text in section 7 says:

“This section records the status of known implementations of the
  protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
  this Internet-Draft,…”

I am not sure whether we should use “Internet-Draft” terminology in a published 
RFC, and I am not sure what time “at the time of posting of this 
Internet-Draft” refers to.

Perhaps you could say something like:

“This section records the status of known implementations of the
  protocol defined by this specification at the time of writing the
specification,…”

[Xian]: This section will be removed when it becomes a RFC (see the editor note 
put at the beginning of this section in the draft). So I do not think your 
issue applies. I would prefer to leave it, avoiding using specification twice. 
OK?


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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART IETF LC review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07

[Zhangxian (Xian)]

Dan,

Thank you for the review. Happy to see no changes needed, ☺.

Regards,
Xian

发件人: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2016年10月16日 17:22
收件人: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app@tools.ietf.org
主题: Gen-ART IETF LC review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07

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-pce-stateful-pce-app-07
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 10/16/16
IETF LC End Date: 10/17/16
IESG Telechat date: 10/27/16

Summary:
Ready


   The document describes how a stateful PCE can be used to solve

   various problems for MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks, and the benefits it

   brings to such deployments.
It is very well written, with solid and detailed argumentation. I find this 
category of documents very useful both for operators to select their options in 
their current deployments, as well as for protocol developers to prioritize 
extensions and future new developments. Congratulations and thanks to the 
authors.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

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