Hi Jouni,
Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable comments.
We authors will fix those issues late.
B.R.
Weiqiang Cheng
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Pals [mailto:pals-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] 代表 Jouni Korhonen
发送时间: 2017年2月14日 8:44
收件人: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
抄送:
draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; pals(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
主题: [Pals] Review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-05
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-coordination-??
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2017-02-13
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-02
Summary:
The document is ready. I have few questions, though, that most likely are
obvious to the document authors and to the WG.
Major issues:
None.
Minor issues:
Not really an issue, but more of thinking out loud. There is no text in
Section 3.2. what happens, say, when PE1 sends DHC+Status TLV and
PE2 sends DHC+Switching TLV both reporting a failure of PW1. I am not sure
if this is a relevant case, but I could expect there can be a sequence of
events that cause these DHC messages to cross between PE1 and PE2?
Nits/editorial comments:
* The document uses few acronyms without expanding them. Those should be
checked.
* In Section 3.2. s/table 1 ./Table 1.
* There are multiple occurrences of "table 1" that should be "Table 1".
There are multiple occurrences of "figure 5" that should be "Figure 5".
There are multiple occurrences of "figure 1" that should be "Figure 1".
* Section 3.2. says "..using the DHC message above." Since the message is
quite a bit above I would rewrite this as "..using the DHC message defined
in Section 3.1."
* Section 3.2. protection procedures would greatly benefit
clarity/readability having one or two signaling flow figures assisting the
textual description how the PW failures are signaled between the PEs (using
the DHCs and sometimes assisted with OAM messaging).
_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
Pals(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals