Loa, Thanks for doing the review. I think it may be worthwhile to also send out the .docx file in addition to the text version.
Bob > On Jan 19, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu> wrote: > > WG, > > I have reviewed the entire document. > > First, I'm not an IPv6 expert. > > As far as I can see the sued on > > I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn the tools, > but so far I have failed. > > I have instead done what I use to do, use the review tool with Word. > > Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save the result > as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as refrences to a > list at the end of the document. But you can't get everything. > > > /Loa > > PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot and in itself are > so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and asking them > to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting the wglc? > > idnits 2.16.02 > > /tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt: > > Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see > https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No issues found here. > > Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No issues found here. > > Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one > being 6 characters in excess of 72. > > == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses > in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not > match the current year > > -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not > defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a requirements expression, it > should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119; > otherwise it should not be all-uppercase. > > == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, > is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST > NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). > > Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: > > To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo request message is > generated by the initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the > segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the target SID. There MAY > or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID. > > == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, > is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST > NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). > > Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: > > To traceroute a target SID a probe message is generated by the > initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the segment-list of the SRH > immediately preceding the target SID. There MAY or MAY NOT be additional > segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID. > > -- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days in the past. Is this > intentional? > > > Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references > to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) > > == Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line 190, but not defined > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 191 > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 191 > > -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 192 > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on line 230, but not defined > > == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is mentioned on line > 241, but not defined > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line 701, but not defined > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line 660, but not defined > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 823, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line 843, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06 > > > Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). > > Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about > the items above. > > On 05/12/2019 04:53, Ole Troan wrote: >> Hello, >> As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this message starts a >> new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: >> Title : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment >> Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6) >> Author : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer, M. Chen >> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02 >> Pages : 23 >> Date : 2019-11-20 >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/ >> as a Proposed Standard. >> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document >> should be directed to the mailing list. >> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last call will end on >> the 18th of December 2019. >> To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as early as >> possible, we would require at least >> two reviewers to do a complete review of the document. Please let the >> chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer. >> The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group, with discussion >> directed to the ipv6 list. >> Thanks, >> Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> i...@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
