Hi Julien, I have uploaded the 04 version. Please take a look.
Thanks, Mingui > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 6:36 PM > To: Mingui Zhang > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-02 > > Hi Mingui, > > I have looked at the diff of your update and have noticed that several > "should" > have been replaced by "need[s] to": I appreciate that you acknowledge my > comment on this, but none of them being RFC 2119 keyword, I still doubt this > matches Standards Track expectations. > > I caught a nit in section 3: s/is sent to/is set to/ > > Regards, > > Julien > > > May. 03, 2016 - [email protected]: > > Hi Julien, > > > > The updated version has just been uploaded. > > > > Thanks, > > Mingui > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:51 PM > >> > >> Hi Mingui, > >> > >> About the "updated RFCs" issue below, my point is: "please make sure > >> the text and the hearder are complete". I just had a quick look at > >> those references, you know better than me which are actually relevant. > >> > >> I am looking forward to the updated version. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Julien > >> > >> > >> Apr. 29, 2016 - [email protected]: > >>> Hi Julien, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the comments! Much appreciated! > >>> > >>> Please see in-lines below. An updated version will soon be uploaded > >>> to resolve > >> the comments. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Mingui > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 4:34 AM > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > >>>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > >>>> routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG > >>>> review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review > >>>> is to > >> provide assistance to the Routing ADs. > >>>> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > >>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > >>>> > >>>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing > >>>> ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any > >>>> other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to > >>>> resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. > >>>> > >>>> Document: draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-02.txt > >>>> Reviewer: Julien Meuric > >>>> Review Date: April 27, 2016 > >>>> IETF LC End Date: April 5, 2016 > >>>> > >>>> Intended Status: Standards Track > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *Summary:* > >>>> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should > >>>> be resolved before publication. > >>>> > >>>> *Comments:* > >>>> Even though it requires to browse some other TRILL (normative) > >>>> documents, the mechanism itself is simple and well described. > >>>> Nevertheless, the specification deserves some improvement when it > >>>> comes to obligations and options: this was part of my expectation > >>>> after I realized it was upgrading a short section of the base > >>>> document (RFC 6325), which needs to be emphasized as well. > >>> > >>> In the abstract, it's already mentioned as "optional updates" to RFC > >>> 6325. I think > >> "Updates: 6325 " needs to appear in the page header as well. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> *Minor Issues:* > >>>> - The document is ST and references RFC 2119. There a some "MUST" > >>>> and one "SHOULD", many of them inherited from specifications out of > >>>> the referenced documents. On the other side, "must" and "should" > >>>> are commonly used. This MUST be brought up to ST expectations. > >>> > >>> The usage of "must" and "should" will be updated as needed. I have > >>> checked all > >> those appearances. The changes would be editorial. > >>> > >>>> - The document claims to only update RFC 7177. It seems however > >>>> that it also updates RFC 6325 (section 4.3.2), RFC 7176 and maybe even > >>>> RFC > 7780. > >>> > >>> Actually, I don't think this document updates RFC7176. It simply > >>> makes use of > >> the MTU Sub-TLV defined in RFC 7176. > >>> The specification about the originatingL1LSPBufferSize of an > >>> unreachable > >> RBridge is a slight update to RFC7780. This will be emphasized. > >>> > >>>> That should be either acknowledged or clarified. The 4th paragraph > >>>> of the introduction tries to tackle that topic, but it is not clear > >>>> enough in defining the position of the document with respect to > >>>> previously > >> defined mechanisms. > >>> > >>> The updated to RFC 6325 will be emphasized in this paragraph. The > >>> backward > >> compatibility will be moved to here as well. It will help the positioning. > >>> > >>>> - The 3rd paragraph of the introduction duplicates the beginning of > >>>> the following section 2. A possible way to limit this repetition > >>>> effect may be to summarize that part of the introduction. > >>> > >>> Yes, summarization is the proper way. > >>> > >>>> - Section 3 specifies an algorithm. Even if it does not rely on a > >>>> formal language, consistency would be valuable. My mind compiler > >>>> would > >> suggest: > >>>> * "If" is followed by "then" only once: "then" keyword to be > dropped? > >>>> * The algorithm relies on a break/stop or continue > >>>> principle; as such, the instance of "Else" at the end should be > >>>> replaced by "<line > >>>> break> 4) Repeat Step1"; > >>>> * "is set to" and "<--" seem to be similar: please pick one or > >>>> clarify; > >>>> * to improve readability, I would drop the double naming > >>>> introduced with X, > >>>> X1 and X2 and rely on explicit variable names all along, as in the > >>>> text: e.g., "linkMtuSize" instead of X, "lowerBound" for X1 and > "upperBound" > >> instead of X2. > >>> > >>> Sure. Explicit names will be used for the sake of readability. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> *Nits:* > >>> > >>> The following nits will be fixed as suggested. > >>> > >>>> ------ > >>>> "Updates" field in header > >>>> --- > >>>> - I think the "RFC" acronym should appear. > >>>> - The list may be extended with RFC RFC 6325, RFC 7176 and maybe > >>>> even RFC 7780. > >>>> ------ > >>>> Abstract > >>>> --- > >>>> - s/campus wide MTU feature/campus-wide MTU feature/ > >>>> - s/campus wide capability/campus-wide capability/ > >>>> - s/link local packets/link-local packets/ > >>>> - s/link local MTUs/link-local MTUs/ > >>>> - "It updates RFC..." duplicates header: either to drop or make > >>>> more specific to point to precise sections/mechanisms. > >>>> ------ > >>>> Section 1. > >>>> --- > >>>> - s/link scope PDUs can/link-scoped PDUs can/ > >>>> ------ > >>>> Section 2. > >>>> --- > >>>> - s/campus wide Sz MTU/campus-wide Sz MTU/ > >>>> - s/area wide scope/area-wide scope/ > >>>> - s/domain wide scope/domain wide scope/ > >>>> - s/L1 Circuit Scoped/L1 Circuit-Scoped/ > >>>> - "limited to 1470 to 65,535 bytes": I cannot parse it, is it meant to > >>>> be a > range? > >>>> ------ > >>>> Section 4. > >>>> - OLD > >>>> "while RB1 normally ignores link state information for any IS-IS > >>>> unreachable RBridge RB2, originatingL1LSPBufferSize is an exception." > >>>> NEW > >>>> "while in most cases RB1 ignores link state information for IS-IS > >>>> unreachable RBridge RB2, originatingL1LSPBufferSize is meaningful." > >>>> [current wording suggests it is adding an exception to a mandatory > >>>> behavior, which AFAIU it does not] > >>> > >>> OK. Will update the words. > >>> > >>>> ------ > >>>> Section 7. > >>>> --- > >>>> - "tested size can be advertised": "can" is to be addressed as part > >>>> of the loose RFC 2119 wording comment. > >>> > >>> Will use the word "MAY" instead. > >>> > >>>> ------ > >>>> Section 8. > >>>> --- > >>>> - "value [...] had been reported": "reported" puzzles me, maybe "tested" > >>>> was meant? > >>>> - The 3rd paragraph "For an Lz-ignorant [...] link-wide Lz." should > >>>> be moved up to become the second paragraph, so as to clarify what > >>>> an > >> Lz-ignorant is. > >>> > >>> OK. It will be moved up. > >>> > >>>> - "The extension of TRILL MTU negociation...": this is an explicit > >>>> positioning which should be mentioned earlier in the I-D. > >>> > >>> > >>> OK. This will be moved to the introduction. > >>> > >>>> ------ > >>>> Section 10. > >>>> --- > >>>> - RFC 7180 bis is now RFC 7780. > >>> > >>> Yes, this will be updated. > >>> > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Julien > >>> _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
