Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-03.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 15:25:08 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131120
IETF LC End Date: 20131126
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 3 and 9 page 30: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1.1 page 5 (ECMP): Pathing -> Path

 - 2.1 page 6 and many other places: e.g. -> e.g.,
  (and i.e. -> i.e., too... First at 2.4 page 12)

 - 2.6 page 12: ask the RFC Editor to manage to get the title not
  at the very end of the page

 - 6.1.5 and 6.1.6 page 26: in group item titles you put "/" and ","
  separators, for instance:
   - VLAN / Fine grain label / Flow parameters
  and
   - Target RBridge Nickname (unicast), Tree Identifier (Multicast) and
   IP multicast group
  Is there a good reason? And BTW the IP multicast group is for the
  multicast case. Note my comment is only about the wording: the spec
  is very easy to understand.

 - 6.1.7 page 27 (and 6.1.8 page 28): in Repeat Count
  "For proactive monitoring this may be set to allow for infinite
   monitoring."
  what is the recommended value to set the counter (or with other words
  how is encoded the infinite)?

 - 10.2 page 31 (TRILL-BFD): Interconnetion -> Interconnection
  (Note the spelling error is in the referenced I-D itself but
   it has at least one common author)

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: my spell checker insists about congruency (the correct term is
congruence) and IMHO it is right...

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:28:41 -0500

> congruence) and IMHO it is right...

It is indeed.   :)

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:10:33 -0500

Hi,

Thanks for the review. Below are my responses. Hopefully my co-authors
will agree.

>  - ToC page 3 and 9 page 30: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

OK.

>  - 1.1 page 5 (ECMP): Pathing -> Path

OK.

>   (and i.e. -> i.e., too... First at 2.4 page 12)

Actually, I don't think the RFC Editor likes Latin acronyms so it
might be better to replace "e.g." with "for example" as well as adding
a common after it and either replace "i.e." with "such as" or just
drop it. I think all the cases where "i.e." occurs immediately after
an open parenthesis can just be dropped...

>   at the very end of the page

Yeah...

>   is very easy to understand.

I don't think there is any special reason. Probably "VLAN / Fine grain
label / Flow parameters" should be replaced with "VLAN, Fine grain
label, and Flow parameters".

>   how is encoded the infinite)?

This is an informational high level framework document. I believe that
specific encoding issues are to be addressed in the standards track
protocol documents such as draft-ietf-trill-oam-loss-delay in this
case.

>    it has at least one common author)

:-) we can fix that here. Hopefully the RFC Editor will fix it in the
referenced ID. I'll send them a message. I believe they have a
facility for buffering editorial comments on drafts in the RFC
Editor's queue until they get to editing them.

> congruence) and IMHO it is right...

OK.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]