Hi Matthew:I am fine with all your explanations. Please seek guidance from your shepherd or AD with respect to the next steps.
Miguel
BOCCI Matthew wrote:
Miguel, Please see below.ThanksMatthew-----Original Message----- From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 May 2009 10:52 To: BOCCI Matthew; VIGOUREUX MARTIN; [email protected];[email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; Loa Andersson; [email protected] Cc: General Area Review Team; [email protected] Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 20-May-2005 IESG Telechat date: Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards trackRFC.I reviewed version -04 of this document, and I had a number of minor comments. Most of them have been solved, but still I need to commenton afew remaining minor issues. Minor issues: - Rule of 5 authors. The draft lists 6 authors, of which 2 of them are listed as Editors. While this is not an impediment for itspublication,certainly it brakes the RFC Editor's rule of 5 authors.I'm waiting for guidance from Loa and Adrian on this one.- In version 4 I had this comment: On Section 3.1, first paragraph, the text reads: The structure of ACH TLVs that MAY follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in the following sections. I am not sure what the text wants to say, because it mean want to say either: a) The structure of ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV Header ... b) The structure of ACH TLVs that can follow an ACH TLV Header .. If the intention is a), then this text should be written in Section3.3,which is the section that describes the ACH TLV object. If theintentionis b), then it is correctly placed, but please do use "can" instead of "MAY". The authors clarified that the intention was to express "a". Now in version 5, the text has been moved to Section 3.3, which is thecorrectSection. However, I still have a problem with the wording "that MAY", because I think it will cause confussion. The text is a restrictive relative clause. I don't understand how normative text MAY can be included in a restrictive relative clause, whose purpose is torestrictthe set of ACH TLVs to only those who follow the ACH TLV header. Iwillargue that, as written, is unimplementable. So, I suspect that you are trying to say the following (please review carefully): "ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs that follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in this section." In the above paragraph, the first sentence express the optionality ofACHTLVs to follow or not an ACH TLV header. The second sentence says that the rest of the section is devoted only to the subset of those ACHTLVsthat follow an ACH TLV header. Nothing is said about ACH TLVs that donotfollow an ACH TLV header.What we are trying to say is the following. ACH TLVs may or may not exist in a G-Ach. If they exist, ACH TLVs may only be placed after an ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs is as follows... So I think a slight modification to your proposed sentence clarifies the point: "ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs is defined and described in this section."- New issue: there is a note at the end of Section 4.2.1.1. Unfortunately, the note contains a normative statement (MUST).Normativestatements are incompatible with the definition of a note, whichmerelyadds some additional explanation to the text. I would suggest move the sentence of the note that contains the normative statement outside the note, in which case there might be a need for some introductory text.In retrospect, I am not sure that I am comfortable with this sentence either. The preceding sentence says "If this is not the targeted destination, but the node has agreed to process packets on that ACH channel, then the processing applied to the packet is out of scope of this document." I think that the specifications for the individual protocols that run in the G-ACh should say what to do next, so I would prefer to remove the final sentence entirely.- Typo in Section 4.2.1.2: s/MPLSsection/MPLS sectionOK thanks/Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
-- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
