Subject: [Roll] [roll] routing-metrics #83 (new): Comment received WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-09.txt --- Editorial Comments

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:57:19 -0000

#83: Comment received WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-09.txt ---
Editorial Comments
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…            |       Owner:  dominique.barthel@…                 
     Type:  defect           |      Status:  new                                 
 Priority:  major            |   Milestone:                                      
Component:  routing-metrics  |     Version:                                      
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |    Keywords:                                      
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Original Email below (refer to the archives for the full discussion)

 Email sent on September 23, by Phoebus Chen:

 General Editorial Comments for the authors:

 1) I suggest moving Section 6 on "Use of multiple DAG Metric Container"
 into Section 2 "Object formats."  It's near the end of the document, yet
 it says
 "In the rest of this document, this use of multiple DAG Metric
 Containers will be considered as if they were actually just one long
 DAG Metric Container."

 2) I suggest moving Section 7 "Metric consistency" into Section 1
 "Introduction".  (Also, maybe the point being made in this section is
 obvious?)

 3) I suggest moving Section 8 "Metric Usage" into a subsection of Section
 2, or somewhere earlier in the document.  It will shed more light when the
 precedence field is first discussed.  Of course, the text will need to
 mention that the metrics mentioned in the examples will be defined in more
 detail in Sections 3 and 4.

 4) Section 8 gives an example of how to break ties in metrics.  What
 happens when there is a tie in the precedence field between two metrics?
 Is this not allowed?  Is it broken in the order of the objects in the
 metric container (as it was before in version 8 of the document)?  Or is
 the behavior in this case "beyond the scope of this document," and must be
 resolved by the Objective Function?

 5) Section 9 is still incomplete... is this OK for last call?  Only the
 NSA and Hop-count objects are described in 9.3 and 9.4 respectively.

 6) Section 1 "Introduction" has a long discussion on Dynamic vs. Static
 Metrics, after classifying the links according to characteristics
 (paragraphs 1, 3-5 after the list on pg. 5).  I suggest a shorter
 description and deferring / moving the bulk of the discussion to Section 5
 "Computation of dynamic metrics and attributes."  Or at least, present
 this discussion after the discussion on the other classifications (which
 turns out to just be one sentence on link and node metrics not being
 exclusive), following the order of the list.

 7) In many of the object formats, several of the descriptions of the
 flags/fields do not follow the order of the flags/fields in the object.
 See Figure 2 and the following description, Figure 3 and the following
 description, and Figure 5 and the following description.  It would be a
 little easier to read if the orders matched.

 8) In several figures, the last Byte indices above the objects are
 partially missing.  Not a big deal, but it looks a little sloppy leaving
 them off.

 9) There are misspelled words throughout the document... please run it
 through a spell checker after making the final edits.

 Nits below.  Search for comments preceded by PC>."

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/83>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:59:48 -0000

Changes (by jpv@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Answer from dominique barthel - Oct 14

 Hello Phoebus,

 Thanks for your thorough review. Please find inlined the account of my
 processing of each of your comments.
 Best regards,

 Dominique

 -----Message d'origine-----
 De : roll issue tracker [mailto:[email-masked]] Envoyé : mardi 5
 octobre 2010 16:57 À : BARTHEL Dominique RD-TECH-GRE; [email-masked] Cc :
 [email-masked] Objet : [roll] routing-metrics #83 (new): Comment received
 WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-routing-metrics-09.txt --- Editorial
 Comments

 #83: Comment received WG Last Call on draft-ietf-roll-routing-
 metrics-09.txt --- Editorial Comments
 -----------------------------+------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------+----
 Reporter:  jpv@...            |       Owner:  dominique.barthel@...
     Type:  defect           |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major            |   Milestone:
 Component:  routing-metrics  |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |    Keywords:
 -----------------------------+------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------+----
 Original Email below (refer to the archives for the full discussion)

 1) I suggest moving Section 6 on "Use of multiple DAG Metric Container"
 into Section 2 "Object formats."  It's near the end of the document, yet
 it says  "In the rest of this document, this use of multiple DAG Metric
 Containers will be considered as if they were actually just one long  DAG
 Metric Container."
 [DB: done as suggested]

 [DB: done as suggested]

 [DB: done as suggested]

 [DB: specified that this is implementation dependant]

 5) Section 9 is still incomplete... is this OK for last call?  Only the
 NSA and Hop-count objects are described in 9.3 and 9.4 respectively.
 [DB: Only incomplete flag fields and numerical field should be managed by
 IANA. NSA and Hop-count are the only two of that type.]

 [DB: reshuffled the text somewhat to align with list. However, kept the
 dynamic metrics discussion up-front because of its sensitive nature.]

 7) In many of the object formats, several of the descriptions of the
 flags/fields do not follow the order of the flags/fields in the object.
 See Figure 2 and the following description, Figure 3 and the following
 description, and Figure 5 and the following description.  It would be a
 little easier to read if the orders matched.
 [DB: done as suggested in all cases, but the P flag of DMC which would be
 harder to understand if introduced first]

 [DB: done as suggested]

 [DB: done]

 Nits below.  Search for comments preceded by PC>."
 [DB: thanks for this thorough work! Examined them one by one, and fixed
 most, unless disagreement in interpretation, such as the explanation of
 ETX update]
 --
 Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/83>
 roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

-- 
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  jpv@…            |        Owner:  dominique.barthel@…                 
     Type:  defect           |       Status:  closed                              
 Priority:  major            |    Milestone:                                      
Component:  routing-metrics  |      Version:                                      
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |   Resolution:  fixed                               
 Keywords:                   |  
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/83#comment:1>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>