Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)
On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: Thanks Bing - The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of referencing Tim's expired draft. So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is mentioned in the acknowledgments as: [draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout]. Shouldn't it then be an informational reference? It doesn't make sense to me to mention a draft in the text and not have a reference. Stig
RE: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)
Hi, Robert Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot. Many thanks to you. All the best, Bing -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:13 PM To: Liubing (Leo) Cc: re...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07) Thanks Bing - The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of referencing Tim's expired draft. I think you've addressed all my comments except for the one on section 5.1, but that's ok. For completeness and ease on the ADs, here's an updated summary: Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: May 10, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013 IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013 Summary: Ready On 5/2/13 6:02 AM, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert Thanks a lot for your continuous careful review. Please see replies inline. -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:33 AM To: re...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: April 1, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013 IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013 Summary: Ready with nits (that border on minor issues) This update improved the readability significantly, and addressed my major concern about being able to build a list of the gaps. Thank you. There are a few issues from my last call review that are still not addressed. I have left the classification of minor issue vs nits the same as the original review to make referring to the earlier review easier, but please consider all of these Nits. The IESG will need to decide whether to escalate them. I've trimmed away the points that were addressed. On 4/1/13 3:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: -- Minor issues: The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. This version still references that long expired draft. There was also conversation on apps-discuss about making that reference normative. IMHO, this is not the right way to treat the RFC series, and strongly encourage moving the text that you want to reference into something that will become an RFC. [Bing] Maybe Brian's suggestion of putting some texts into an appendix is a good way. We'll discuss this problem when make the next time update. Should section 8 belong to some other document? It looks like operational renumbering advice/considerations, but doesn't seem to be exploring renumbering gaps, except for the very short section 8.2 which says we need a better mechanism without much explanation. Afaict, this wasn't addressed at all. In particular, we need a better mechanism is still all that section 8.2 says. [Bing] Sorry for leaving it out. Will do in next update. Section 5.1, first bullet. The list below the impact of ambiguous M/O flags says things like there is no standard and it is unspecified. I think you are trying to say that there is ambiguity in what's written, not that nothing's written. This entire list would benefit from being recast in terms of what needs to be done (what are the gaps?). This text remains unmodified. [Bing] We made revision focusing on explaining what are the gaps, but the texts change was omitted, will do in next update. -- Nits/editorial comments: There are a few sentences ending with etc. in the document. Please consider deleting the word from the list - it doesn't help each sentence make its point. There were some changes, but mostly these still exist. I'll leave pressing this point further to the RFC Editor. [Bing] A professional language/editorial check would be helpful. Seciton 7.1: The first bullet does not parse. If I guess its meaning correctly (that it would be benificial to tell hosts that local DNS has been updated and they may want to make fresh queries), please be careful with the wording. The hosts don't know which names are likely to resolve locally. This text remained unchanged
Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)
Yes, thanks all - I think we're nearly there… Tim On 13 May 2013, at 02:58, Liubing (Leo) leo.liub...@huawei.com wrote: Hi, Robert Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot. Many thanks to you. All the best, Bing -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:13 PM To: Liubing (Leo) Cc: re...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07) Thanks Bing - The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of referencing Tim's expired draft. I think you've addressed all my comments except for the one on section 5.1, but that's ok. For completeness and ease on the ADs, here's an updated summary: Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: May 10, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013 IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013 Summary: Ready On 5/2/13 6:02 AM, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert Thanks a lot for your continuous careful review. Please see replies inline. -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:33 AM To: re...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: April 1, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013 IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013 Summary: Ready with nits (that border on minor issues) This update improved the readability significantly, and addressed my major concern about being able to build a list of the gaps. Thank you. There are a few issues from my last call review that are still not addressed. I have left the classification of minor issue vs nits the same as the original review to make referring to the earlier review easier, but please consider all of these Nits. The IESG will need to decide whether to escalate them. I've trimmed away the points that were addressed. On 4/1/13 3:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: -- Minor issues: The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. This version still references that long expired draft. There was also conversation on apps-discuss about making that reference normative. IMHO, this is not the right way to treat the RFC series, and strongly encourage moving the text that you want to reference into something that will become an RFC. [Bing] Maybe Brian's suggestion of putting some texts into an appendix is a good way. We'll discuss this problem when make the next time update. Should section 8 belong to some other document? It looks like operational renumbering advice/considerations, but doesn't seem to be exploring renumbering gaps, except for the very short section 8.2 which says we need a better mechanism without much explanation. Afaict, this wasn't addressed at all. In particular, we need a better mechanism is still all that section 8.2 says. [Bing] Sorry for leaving it out. Will do in next update. Section 5.1, first bullet. The list below the impact of ambiguous M/O flags says things like there is no standard and it is unspecified. I think you are trying to say that there is ambiguity in what's written, not that nothing's written. This entire list would benefit from being recast in terms of what needs to be done (what are the gaps?). This text remains unmodified. [Bing] We made revision focusing on explaining what are the gaps, but the texts change was omitted, will do in next update. -- Nits/editorial comments: There are a few sentences ending with etc. in the document. Please consider deleting the word from the list - it doesn't help each sentence make its point. There were some changes, but mostly these still exist. I'll leave pressing this point further to the RFC Editor. [Bing] A professional language/editorial check would be helpful. Seciton 7.1: The first bullet does not parse. If I guess its meaning correctly (that it would be benificial to tell hosts that local DNS has been updated and they may want to make fresh queries), please be careful with the wording. The hosts don't know which names are likely
Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)
Thanks Bing - The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of referencing Tim's expired draft. I think you've addressed all my comments except for the one on section 5.1, but that's ok. For completeness and ease on the ADs, here's an updated summary: Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: May 10, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013 IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013 Summary: Ready On 5/2/13 6:02 AM, Liubing (Leo) wrote: Hi, Robert Thanks a lot for your continuous careful review. Please see replies inline. -Original Message- From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:33 AM To: re...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05.txt Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: April 1, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 10, 2013 IESG Telechat date: May 16, 2013 Summary: Ready with nits (that border on minor issues) This update improved the readability significantly, and addressed my major concern about being able to build a list of the gaps. Thank you. There are a few issues from my last call review that are still not addressed. I have left the classification of minor issue vs nits the same as the original review to make referring to the earlier review easier, but please consider all of these Nits. The IESG will need to decide whether to escalate them. I've trimmed away the points that were addressed. On 4/1/13 3:46 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: -- Minor issues: The document currently references draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout several times. That document is long expired (2006). It would be better to simply restate what is important from that document here and reference it only once in the acknowlegements rather than send the reader off to read it. This version still references that long expired draft. There was also conversation on apps-discuss about making that reference normative. IMHO, this is not the right way to treat the RFC series, and strongly encourage moving the text that you want to reference into something that will become an RFC. [Bing] Maybe Brian's suggestion of putting some texts into an appendix is a good way. We'll discuss this problem when make the next time update. Should section 8 belong to some other document? It looks like operational renumbering advice/considerations, but doesn't seem to be exploring renumbering gaps, except for the very short section 8.2 which says we need a better mechanism without much explanation. Afaict, this wasn't addressed at all. In particular, we need a better mechanism is still all that section 8.2 says. [Bing] Sorry for leaving it out. Will do in next update. Section 5.1, first bullet. The list below the impact of ambiguous M/O flags says things like there is no standard and it is unspecified. I think you are trying to say that there is ambiguity in what's written, not that nothing's written. This entire list would benefit from being recast in terms of what needs to be done (what are the gaps?). This text remains unmodified. [Bing] We made revision focusing on explaining what are the gaps, but the texts change was omitted, will do in next update. -- Nits/editorial comments: There are a few sentences ending with etc. in the document. Please consider deleting the word from the list - it doesn't help each sentence make its point. There were some changes, but mostly these still exist. I'll leave pressing this point further to the RFC Editor. [Bing] A professional language/editorial check would be helpful. Seciton 7.1: The first bullet does not parse. If I guess its meaning correctly (that it would be benificial to tell hosts that local DNS has been updated and they may want to make fresh queries), please be careful with the wording. The hosts don't know which names are likely to resolve locally. This text remained unchanged, and when coming back to the document for a re-review (which is somewhat like coming back to an RFC you've read before just for reference), it's even harder to understand what it's trying to say than it was when reading the document linearly. I think you are trying to say A notification mechanism may be needed to indicate _to_ hosts that a renumbering event has _changed how local recursive DNS servers will respond_. That mechanism may also need to indicate that such a change will happen at a specific time in the future. [Bing] I think it's a better description. Will update, thanks much. Section 7.1, third bullet - This isn't
Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)
On 11/05/2013 04:58, Stig Venaas wrote: On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: Thanks Bing - The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of referencing Tim's expired draft. So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is mentioned in the acknowledgments as: [draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout]. Shouldn't it then be an informational reference? It doesn't make sense to me to mention a draft in the text and not have a reference. YMMV, but I expect the RFC Editor will resolve this. Brian
