Dear Ketan: Sounds good. Thank you for your time attending to my comments.
- vijay On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 12:26 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses. > > The changes discussed below would reflect in the next update of the > document. > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 1:20 AM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani >> 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-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-?? >> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani >> Review Date: 2022-08-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-17 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: Draft is ready with nits for a Proposed Standard. >> >> Major issues: 0 >> >> Minor issues: 1 (please see below) >> >> Nits/editorial comments: 4 (please see below) >> >> Minor: >> - Sec. 3.6: Note that Type is "TBD" here. Should this be 1046, as shown >> in >> Table 1? (Or is the use of 1046 still under discussion?) >> > > KT> This allocation is currently under "Expert Review" - at this point, it > is a suggested code point. This will hopefully be completed soon and we > will update the document once done. > > >> >> Nits: >> - I note that certain acronyms --- IGP, NLRI, ASLA --- are not defined. I >> suspect that these are well-known in the community, hence need no >> definition. >> Just in case they are not, you may consider expanding the rare ones on >> first >> use. > > > KT> Ack. Fixed some of these acronyms that are not well-known on their > first use. > > >> - Sec. 1: s/Flexible algorithm is called so as/Flexible algorithm is so >> called because/ > > > KT> Fixed > > >> - Sec. 2: s/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node >> is/Definition(s) (FAD) advertised by a node is (are)/ >> Reason: symmetry in the sentence construction >> > > KT> Fixed > > >> - Sec. 3.6: Is Figure 7 missing the trailing "//" for sub-TLV tpes? >> > > KT> Fixed. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
