Thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for which I have no further comment.
Thanks! Ben. On May 16, 2013, at 10:19 PM, "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang2...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [...] > -- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of > an incorrect implementation or differing encapsulation formats. Does this > suggest that the specifications should be clarified? In particular, in the > case of encapsulation format mismatch, should the specs include stronger > requirements to be able to receive all encapsulation formats? Or should the > number of options be reduced? > [Re. by ΕΗ] The protocol provides a number of different approaches > [Re. by Weiming] The key issue is still from the deep understanding of the > protocol from implementations. I still have not seen need for any urgent > change for the protocol. I don't have enough knowledge of the protocol to form a specific opinion, but it's been my experience in other areas that when implementors interpret things differently, there's often room for clarification, even if the text is formally correct. I agree it doesn't imply an urgent need, but would it be worth one or more errata? [...] > -- section 4.4, last paragraph: > > The text says that since the mentioned failures were likely the result of > bugs, it doesn't indicate an interoperability problem in the specs. I have to > point out that, it also doesn't prove interoperability in both directions for > the particular test. It would also be worth commenting on whether the > probably bugs were programming errors rather than misunderstandings of the > specification. > [Re. by Weiming] to change the whole paragraph to: > <t> The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical to > the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged. Moreover, test > #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked well. Therefore, it can > be reasonably inferred that the problem caused the failure was from the > implementations, rather than from the ForCES protocol itself or from > misunderstanding of implementations on the protocol specification. Although > the failure made the OSPF interoperability test incomplete, it did not show > interoperability problem. More test work is needed to verify the OSPF > interoperability.</t> Works for me, thanks! [...] [Re. by Weiming] The section 3.2 para.3 has been changed to: > <t>... Because there came unfortunately a problem with the test system in > Greece to deploy IPSec over TML during the test process, this test only took > place between test systems in China and Japan.</t> The sentence is still hard to parse. Do you mean the following? "Because an unfortunate problem with the test system in Greece prevented the deployment of IPSec over TML, this test only took place between the test systems in China and Japan." [...] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
