Subject: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 07:40:13 -0400

Attached is my review of the specified document, submitted as part of
the Gen-ART process.  For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that
	should be fixed before publication. 

Comments:

1. The term catchment is used before it is defined. I looked it up at
dictionary.com and tried to extrapolate its meaning in this context but
did it incorrectly based on the definition in section 2.

2. In section 3.2, item number 4, it reads "information to help locate
location of traffic sources" which seems to me to either be a typo or
perhaps an awkward mixing of English and keywords?

3. There are a few cases of acronyms not being expanded upon or
referenced. Some may be considered common knowledge to the general
reader, but I'm not sure. They include NLRI in section 4.4.4.

4. In section 6.1, section item 2, wouldn't the distributed detection of
attack traffic also provide each instance with less information from
which to make decisions? Or is it expected that they share information?

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel 
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:24:54 -0700

Hi Sharon,

> did it incorrectly based on the definition in section 2.

Noted, thanks.

> perhaps an awkward mixing of English and keywords?

Yes, that's ugly. I will fix it.

> reader, but I'm not sure. They include NLRI in section 4.4.4.

I will do a complete search for other such instances, and fix them too.

> which to make decisions? Or is it expected that they share  

It is expected that the operator of the various nodes is able to draw  
information from each of them. I'll review the text and see if I can  
make that a bit more obvious.

Many thanks for all your comments. I'll work on the text.

Should I consider your efforts at reviewing this draft ongoing, and  
send you fixes to the issues you identified? Or is the right  
procedure to bump the draft version using the usual submission process?

Thanks,

Joe

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 17:24:54 -0700

Hi Sharon,

Noted, thanks.

Thanks,

Joe

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:05:04 +1000

Hi Joe,

>procedure to bump the draft version using the usual submission process?

The right procedure is to liaise with David Kessens before submitting a 
revision to the draft. I'm not sure what his preference is here!

Geoff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:10:57 +0200

> revision to the draft. I'm not sure what his preference is here!

Correct. None of Sharon's points are grievous, so it's a more practical use
of your time to wait and see if any major issues are raised before fixing
these.

    Brian

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:43:53 -0400

Hi Sharon,

> did it incorrectly based on the definition in section 2.

I recast the first use of "catchment" to avoid using that word.

> perhaps an awkward mixing of English and keywords?

Good catch. I made it "help identify the location".

> reader, but I'm not sure. They include NLRI in section 4.4.4.

NLRI and BGP were fixed.

> which to make decisions? Or is it expected that they share  

It is expected that they will share information.

A candidate re-rendering of -04 is attached, in case you are  
interested. Many thanks for the review!

Joe