Thanks a lot Matthew, Alissa I just posted -08: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-08.txt
All nits fixed. Diff here: http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/9bff109281e8b3c22522c3144cbf0f13e5000498/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-08.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anima-wg/autonomic-control-plane/14d5f9b66b8318bc160cee74ad152c0b926b4042/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-08.txt > """ > If the secure ACP was extendable via untrusted routers then it would > be a lot more verify the secure domain assertion. > """ Was fixed to "...more difficult to verify..." via earlier fix for another reviewer, so it does not show up in diff above. > > * In Section 2.2. "Stable Connectivity for Distributed Network/OAM", > > second paragraph; the word "applicable" should be "applied" in the > > fragment "... how ell it applicable to a ...". Actually fixed to "how well it _is_ applicable" Hope this resolves your concerns. Cheers Toerless On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:36:32AM -0500, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Matt, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot and asked > for your nits to be addressed. > > Alissa > > > On Nov 26, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Matthew Miller > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Reviewer: Matthew Miller > > 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-anima-stable-connectivity-07 > > Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller > > Review Date: 2017-11-26 > > IETF LC End Date: 2017-11-26 > > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > > > Summary: > > > > This document is ready to be published as informational, but there are > > a number of nits that ought be addressed before final publication. > > > > Overall, the document is > > > > Major issues: NONE > > > > Minor issues: NONE > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > * Throughout, there is a mix of the term "data plane" and "data-plane". > > One form should be chosen and the rest corrected to match. > > > > * In Section 1.2. "Data Communications Networks (DCNs)", first > > paragraph; "'th" should be "'s" (or just "s"): "In the late > > 1990'th and ..." should be "In the late 1990s and ...". > > > > * In Section 1.2. "Data Communications Networks (DCNs)", first > > paragraph; the word "where" should be "were" in the fragment > > "These where (and still are) ...". > > > > * In Section 1.2. "Data Communications Networks (DCNs)", first > > paragraph; there is a missing "a" between "are" and "separate" in > > the fragment "they are separate network entirely". > > > > * In Section 2.1.1. "Simple Connectivity for Non-ACP capable NMS > > Hosts", first paragraph; there is a mismatch in plurality in the > > third sentence; instead of: > > > > """ > > They acts as the default router to those NMS hosts and provide them > > with IPv6 connectivity into the ACP. > > """ > > > > it should be: > > > > """ > > They act as the default routers to those NMS hosts and provide them > > with IPv6 connectivity into the ACP. > > """ > > > > * In Section 2.1.3. "Simultaneous ACP and Data Plane Connectivity", > > last paragraph; the following sentence seems to be missing a word > > or two: > > > > """ > > If the secure ACP was extendable via untrusted routers then it would > > be a lot more verify the secure domain assertion. > > """ > > > > * In Section 2.1.4. "IPv4-only NMS Hosts", second paragraph after the > > ordered list; the word "thought" should be "through" in the fragment > > "... be reachable thought the IPv6/IPv4 ...". > > > > * In Section 2.1.5. "Path Selection Policies", fourth paragraph from > > the section's end; there is an extra "of" between "shaping" and "at": > > > > """ > > Traffic policing and/or shaping of at the ACP edge in the NOC can be > > used to throttle applications such as software download into the ACP. > > """ > > > > * In Section 2.2. "Stable Connectivity for Distributed Network/OAM", > > second paragraph; there is a missing "to" between "start" and > > "provide" in the fragment "... tried to start provide common ...". > > > > * In Section 2.2. "Stable Connectivity for Distributed Network/OAM", > > second paragraph; the word "applicable" should be "applied" in the > > fragment "... how ell it applicable to a ...". > > > > * In Section 3.1. "No IPv4 for ACP", third paragraph; the word "as" > > should be "to" in the fragment "... from a native transport as just > > a service on the edge." > > > > * In Section 3.1. "No IPv4 for ACP", last paragraph; the word "type" > > should be "types" in the fragment "In other type of networks as > > well, ...". > > > > * In Section 3.1. "No IPv4 for ACP", last paragraph; the word "support" > > should be "supported" in the fragment "... family will be support so > > all use...". > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
