Julien, Thank you very much for your review!
Mingui, Thank you for addressing the comments. Regards, Alia On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Mingui Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for pointing it out. That typo will be fixed together with other > comments we would receive. > > Thanks, > Mingui > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:34 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, > > > > This version seems to address my comment. > > > > Please note a new typo on page 8: s/any LPS/any LSP/ > > > > Thanks, > > > > Julien > > > > > > May. 10, 2016 - [email protected]: > > > 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 > > >> > > >> 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 have been replaced by "need[s] to": I appreciate that you acknowledge 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
