Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:12:56 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 22 Oct. 2008
IETF LC End Date: 22 Oct. 2008
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard.  Some feedback that will hopefully make the dratf
more readable follows.

- S1.1
   s/"IPv4" or "IPv6", in text/"IPv4" or "IPv6".  In this text/

- S1.6
   In the definition of "VRRP Router",
   s/participate in one/participate as one/

- S4.1
   For either the IPv6 case or the IPv4 case, when Rtr2 transitions
   to being the Master, is its priority changed to 255?  Or does the
   priority remain 100, thus allowing Rtr1 to come back up at some
   later time and reclaim its role as Master?

- S4.2
   s/figure),,/figure),/

- S5, second paragraph
   Do you mean "encapsulated in IPv4 packets" instead of
               "encapsulated in IP packets"?

- S5.1
   The figure in S5.1 starts with a PDU layout of "Version",
   "Type", ...  However, the text right underneath the figure talks
   in terms of IPv4 (and later, IPv6) source/destination addresses
   and other characteristics.  The PDU fields of "Version", "Type"
   et al. are not discussed until S5.2.

   Thus, IMHO there is a disconnect between the figure in S5.1 and
   the subsequent sub-sections that are supposed to explain the
   fields in the PDU contained in the figure.  Is this intentional?

- S6
   In the definition of "Priority", how does the reader rank the
   number indicating priority; i.e., the higher the number, the higher
   the priority?  Or are they related inversely?  I believe it is
   the former from reading the draft (i.e., higher the number, the
   higher the priority); but an explicit sentence may not hurt.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Stephen Nadas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:22:34 -0500

Hi Vijay,

Thank you for the comments.  The 1st, 2nd and 4th seem obviously better
and the others we'll take into consideration for the next rev. once I
hear from (I guess) David (as I am unaware of a document shepard in this
case).

Regards,
Steve 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 16:13
> To: Stephen Nadas
> Cc: General Area Review Team; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; David Ward
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team 
> (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, 
> please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD 
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 
> Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)