Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:00:28 +0100

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose 
of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more 
information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09
Reviewer: Julien Meuric
Review Date: 18 January 2013
IETF LC End Date: 21 January 2013
Intended Status: Standards Track

*Summary:*
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to it.

*Comments:*
This document is clearly written and easy to understand. The defined 
mechanism is simple and well specified.

*Nits:*
Abstract
-Instead of "GMPLS networks", "GMPLS-controlled networks" reads more 
accurate to me. It would also align on the phrase used in the 
introduction. The resulting "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching 
(GMPLS)-controlled networks" may be checked with the RFC Editor.

Introduction
- s/LMP node/LMP-capable node/
- s/functions defined in that document/functions specified in that very 
document/  [repetition of "defined"]
- s/the message types from/the types from/  [repetition of "message"]

Section 2.2
- s/MAY include, HelloConfig/MAY include HelloConfig/

Section 3.1
- s/number of MBZ bits field/number of bits in MBZ field/

Section 4
- s/[RFC4202] defined/[RFC4202]-defined/

Section 9.2
- I tend to think that [LMP TEST] should now reference 
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp

Enjoy the week-end,

Julien

---

From: "Lidan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 07:21:13 +0000

Julien,

Thanks for the review, we will update the draft according to your comments. 

One comment needs your clarification:
- s/functions defined in that document/functions specified in that very document/  [repetition of "defined"]
For adding "very", is it a typo?

For the reference [LMP-TEST], we will check with the authors of draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp, to see what's their intention.

Thank you again!

Dan

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Julien Meuric
发送时间: 2013年1月19日 1:00
收件人: [email-masked]
抄送: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09

Hello,

*Summary:*

*Comments:*

*Nits:*
Abstract

Introduction

Section 2.2

Section 3.1

Section 4

Section 9.2

Enjoy the week-end,

Julien

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:08:05 +0100

Hi Dan.

You're welcome.

I've added "very" on purpose, to emphasize what document the sentence 
was referring to (i.e. the RFC mentioned at the beginning of that very 
same sentence, not at the end of the previous one). It was just a 
suggestion, it isn't mandatory to keep it if you feel it's more 
confusing than clarifying. You may also check with a native English 
speaker (e.g. the RFC Editor), who I'm not.

Regards,

Julien

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:25:34 -0500

Julien/Dan,

Some comments below (as coauthor).

> speaker (e.g. the RFC Editor), who I'm not.

IMO the use of "very" is 100% stylistic.  I don't think it causes any
harm or provides any substantive benefit.  It also doesn't matter to me
if it's included or not...

>> For the reference [LMP-TEST], we will check with the authors of draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp, to see what's their intention.

Rather than reference an individual draft, my suggestion is to just drop
the whole sentence.  It doesn't really add much in any case.

The other comments all look good to me.  Much thanks!

Lou