[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ms-ospf
Subject:    Re: [Lsr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23
From:       "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg () cisco ! com>
Date:       2019-04-18 4:26:59
Message-ID: BYAPR11MB36389502EAFF03793EC45635C1260 () BYAPR11MB3638 ! namprd11 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Erik -

Thanx for the detailed review.
I have published V24 of the draft which addresses all of your comments (and a few \
pending AD review comments from Alvaro). Some exceptions noted below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 7:20 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> extensions.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-
> 23
> 
> Reviewer: Erik Kline
> 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-isis-segment-routing-extensions-??
> Reviewer: Erik Kline
> Review Date: 2019-04-17
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-17
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> For what little I know of IS-IS and segment routing, this all seems to make
> general sense.  I simply had some language/style nits (below).
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> # Section 1
> 
> * "SR's control-plane can be applied ..., and do not require...".  It looks
> like the subject of the sentence is "control-plane" and so perhaps "do not"
> should be "does not".
> 
> * s/draft/document/g
> 
> # Section 2.1
> 
> * "Algorithms identifiers" -> "Algorithm identifiers"
> 
> # Section 2.2.2
> 
> * Length: variable
> 
> Should this say "11-12" (1 + 1 + 6 + 3-4)?
> 
[Les:] No. System ID may be a value from 1-8 octets in length (though in practice \
only the value 6 is used). I have clarified the text to mention that this field is of \
"ID Length" (as per ISO 10589).

> * "set of Adj-SID each router" -> "set of Adj-SIDs each router", perhaps.
> 
> # Section 2.3
> 
> s/valu eis/value is/
> 
> # Section 2.4
> 
> Silly, naive question: does the length include the sum of the octets
> representing the sub-TLVs?
> 
[Les:] Yes. TLV length includes all of the data contained in the TLV - including \
sub-TLVs.

    Les

> # Section 2.4.6
> 
> In example 3, I would recommend s/0xD/0x0D/ & s/0x0/0x00/ & s/0x1/0x01/
> ,
> but perhaps that's just a personal readability thing.
> 
> # Section 3.3
> 
> * "by other components than" -> "by components other than", perhaps.
> 
> * "to know what are the local SIDs" -> "to know what the local SIDs are",
> perhaps.
> 
> * "The SRLB sub-TLV is used for this purpose...", (instead of "that purpose")
> maybe.
> 
> * "which mechanisms are outside" -> "which are outside", maybe.
> 
> * "the SRLB TLV" -> "the SRLB sub-TLV", I think.
> 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]