ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08

2011-08-18 10:32:42
Dear Ben- 

Many thanks to your detailed review. I have addressed all your comments
in the enclosed version. Please see in-line for details. 

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:27 PM
To: 
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: The IETF; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Review Team
Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
mapping-08

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-08-12
IETF LC End Date: 2011-08-12

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed
standard. There are a few editorial issues and nits that should be
considered prior to publication.


Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Please proofread for missing articles (i.e. a, an, the)


Opps, I failed my English test again ;-) I did proofread the document
and have tried to fix the articles to best of my ability. Certainly look
forward to help from RFC editor, if I may please. 

BTW I always struggle which one of the following is (more) correct:

"An RSVP-TE LSP" vs. "A RSVP-TE LSP"

Document uses "an RSVP-TE LSP".

-- idnits reports some issues, please check.


I have cleaned up all idnits in the enclosed version, as follows:

idnits 2.12.12 

tmp/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
'ATTRIBUTE-BNF' 


     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

n.b. We have ignored one comment, as 'ATTRIBUTE-BNF' needs to be
normative reference. 

-- section 1:

It would be helpful to include an explicit definition of " non-
Penultimate Hop Popping behavior" somewhere in the introduction.

We have added it in the enclosed version (v9). 


-- section 1, paragraph 2: "P2MP"

Please expand on first mention. I see you did in the abstract, but it
should be redone in the body.


We have added RSVP-TE point-to-multipoint (P2MP) in the introduction
too. 

-- section 2.2, last paragraph: "w.r.t."

Please spell out


Spelled out. 

-- section 3: First paragraph: " Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a
variable of attacks on the label assigned by the Egress node. "

Is "variable" the correct word?


It seems to describe the sentence well. We are open to any suggestion. 

-- IANA Considerations:

Please include the explicit names of the registry to be changed.


Added Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Parameters registry 

-- 6.1, "[RFC 2119]"

The space between RFC and 2119 confused idnits, and may confuse other
tools.


Adrian also pointed out this. It is fixed in the enclosed version. 

-- 6.1, [RFC5920]

This is an informational draft. Does the reference need to be
normative?


Adrian also pointed out this. It is fixed in the enclosed version.

-- general:

I am unable to read the title without thinking of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hop_on_Pop  :-)

LOL :) 

Attachment: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
Description: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>