Re: [Gen-art] Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04

[Jari Arkko]

Thanks for the review & update, Dan & Carlos, Alvaro!

Jari

On 04 May 2016, at 12:06, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)  wrote:

> Thanks – if the AD is happy, than I am happy as well.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
> Sent: יום ד 04 מאי 2016 18:59
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04
> 
> Hi, Dan,
> 
> Thanks for following up.
> 
> Alvaro, as responsible AD, responded as you can see here: 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13149.html
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> — Carlos.
> 
> On May 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)  wrote:
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review 
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the 
> IETF Chair.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD 
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2016/5/4
> IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12
> IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5
> 
> Summary: Ready with one issue
> 
> The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding 
> of BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases 
> (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document.
> 
> In my initial review I raised two issues. One was accepted and an editorial 
> change was made in draft-04. The second one was:
> 
> -  This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function 
> of being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be 
> regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page?
> 
> The authors answered the following:
> 
> -  I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave 
> this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as 
> updating RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction
> 
> No change was made. I would like to make sure that the responsible AD has 
> seen this comment. It’s not a show-stopper, but I still believe that marking 
> this document as an update to RFC 5881 is better.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)]

Thanks – if the AD is happy, than I am happy as well.

Regards,

Dan


From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com]
Sent: יום ד 04 מאי 2016 18:59
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04

Hi, Dan,

Thanks for following up.

Alvaro, as responsible AD, responded as you can see here: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13149.html

Thanks,

— Carlos.

On May 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 
mailto:droma...@avaya.com>> wrote:

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team 
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF 
Chair.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before 
posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2016/5/4
IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12
IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5

Summary: Ready with one issue

The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding of 
BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases 
(draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document.

In my initial review I raised two issues. One was accepted and an editorial 
change was made in draft-04. The second one was:

-  This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function of 
being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be 
regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page?

The authors answered the following:

-  I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave 
this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as updating 
RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction

No change was made. I would like to make sure that the responsible AD has seen 
this comment. It’s not a show-stopper, but I still believe that marking this 
document as an update to RFC 5881 is better.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Hi, Dan,

Thanks for following up.

Alvaro, as responsible AD, responded as you can see here: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13149.html 


Thanks,

— Carlos.

> On May 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)  wrote:
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review 
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the 
> IETF Chair.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD 
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq 
>  >.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2016/5/4
> IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12
> IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5
> 
> Summary: Ready with one issue
> 
> The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding 
> of BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases 
> (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document.
> 
> In my initial review I raised two issues. One was accepted and an editorial 
> change was made in draft-04. The second one was:
> 
> -  This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function 
> of being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be 
> regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page?
> 
> The authors answered the following:
> 
> -  I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave 
> this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as 
> updating RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction
> 
> No change was made. I would like to make sure that the responsible AD has 
> seen this comment. It’s not a show-stopper, but I still believe that marking 
> this document as an update to RFC 5881 is better.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team 
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF 
Chair.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before 
posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2016/5/4
IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12
IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5

Summary: Ready with one issue

The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding of 
BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases 
(draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document.

In my initial review I raised two issues. One was accepted and an editorial 
change was made in draft-04. The second one was:


-  This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function of 
being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be 
regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page?

The authors answered the following:


-  I do not have a strong opinion one way or another - I will leave 
this one to the AD's guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as updating 
RFC 5881 if that's the preferred direction

No change was made. I would like to make sure that the responsible AD has seen 
this comment. It's not a show-stopper, but I still believe that marking this 
document as an update to RFC 5881 is better.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art