Subject: [CDNi] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-05

From: Michael Tüxen via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:51:51 -0700

Reviewer: Michael Tüxen
Review result: Ready with Nits

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
[email-masked] if you reply to or forward this review.

I have not identified any transport related issues.

To improve readability, you might want to
* resolve acronyms on first occurence like CDN, CDNI,...
* Remove section 1.1, since the introduced abbreviations are not used in the text.
* add a graphical representation of the involved nodes and the messages being exchanged between them

Typos:
* Section 3: the uCDN provide a fallback -> the uCDN provides a fallback
* Section 6: Nir B.  Sopher -> Nir B. Sopher (no double space after period)
* Section 6: Kevin J.  Ma -> Kevin J. Ma (no double space after period)

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:56:50 -0400

Thanks so much for the review, Michael.  I like your suggestions and
hope the authors will incorporate them into the pending revised I-D,
before I send the document to IESG Evaluation.

Barry

---

From: "Ori Finkelman (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:17:18 +0300

Thank you Michael for your comments.
Regarding graphical represtnation, we are still considering that.
This document was intended to be a brief addition to the much elaborated
existing CDNI documents, in which the involved parties are defined and
there are graphical representations of all the relevant seuqneces.
Oringally, we felt that adding the same sequences in this document would be
a duplication and redundant.
Instead we have provided references to the relevant sections in other CDNI
documents.
In the next revision I have added more references.
However, since it seems that reviewers find this document incomplete, I am
now considering adding a drawing to make it clearer.

Please let us know what you think.

Thanks,
Ori

---

From: "Ori Finkelman (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:00:24 +0300

btw,
The double space after period is a result of the xml2RFC tool that adds a
second space after a period with a space.
The only way I found around it is to manually edit the text file after it
was generated.

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:16:09 +0200

On 10. Sep 2019, at 10:00, Ori Finkelman (IETF) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> btw, 
> The double space after period is a result of the xml2RFC tool that adds a second space after a period with a space.
> The only way I found around it is to manually edit the text file after it was generated.
Does
Nir B.&nbsp;Sopher
instead of
Nir B. Sopher
in the .xml file work?
This worked at least for me in the past.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 8:51 PM Michael Tüxen via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Reviewer: Michael Tüxen

---

From: "Ori Finkelman (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:36:28 +0300

Works, thanks.
Cheers,
Ori

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:16 AM Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > The double space after period is a result of the xml2RFC tool that adds
> a second space after a period with a space.