[Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: (with COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/ -- COMMENT: -- Three main things from me: (1) I found I'm in agreement below with some of the points raised in the posted OPSDIR review. Please give that another once-over. (2) A grammatical point: I think nearly every instance in this document of "which" should be replaced by "that". (3) In Section 12.3.3, I don't think it's appropriate to use MUST-type language to constrain future document authors. And now, my nit-storm: Section 1: * "... attribute advertisements - examples of which ..." -- hyphen should be a comma * "... for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE." -- s/RSV/RSVP/ * "... path via that link it will result ..." -- comma after "link" Section 3: * Please define, or provide a reference for, "GMPLS". Section 4.1: * "... not inspected by OSPF, that acts as ..." -- s/that/which instead/ Section 5: * Several changes to this paragraph suggested: OLD: On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of application that is not defined as standardized one. We call such application a user defined application. What such application might be is not subject to the standardization and is outside of the scope of this specification. NEW: On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of applications that are not standardized. We call such an application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These applications are not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope of this specification. * Is the snapshot of the current content of the Link Attribute Application Identifier Registry needed? The rest of the document doesn't seem to reference it. * "... to advertise all UDAs." -- although it's fairly clear at this point what a UDA is, I suggest defining it somewhere above, maybe by hanging it off one of the other places where the full name is used such as in the paragraph above Section 6.1: * Please expand "IPFRR" on first use. Section 6.2: * "All these can be used ..." -- s/All/All of/ Section 11: * "- e.g. RSVP-TE -" -- comma after "e.g." * "... one need to make sure ..." -- s/need/needs/ * "... applications, where the enablement ..." -- remove comma * "... such application - e.g. LFA." -- change to "such application. An example of this is LFA." Section 12.3.4: * "Link attributes that are NOT allowed ..." -- s/NOT/not/ ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: (with COMMENT)
Hi Murray, thanks for your comments, please see inline: On 08/06/2020 08:00, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/ -- COMMENT: -- Three main things from me: (1) I found I'm in agreement below with some of the points raised in the posted OPSDIR review. Please give that another once-over. which ones in particular? I've responded to all of them, so it's hard for me to figure out which ones do you have in mind. (2) A grammatical point: I think nearly every instance in this document of "which" should be replaced by "that". I let this be checked by the English language experts :) (3) In Section 12.3.3, I don't think it's appropriate to use MUST-type language to constrain future document authors. What we are saying is that if there is a router in the network that does not understand this new way of advertising the link attributes, all routers MUST continue to advertise it in the old way (on top of possibly advertising new way). What constrain would this pose to future documents? And now, my nit-storm: Section 1: * "... attribute advertisements - examples of which ..." -- hyphen should be a comma * "... for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE." -- s/RSV/RSVP/ * "... path via that link it will result ..." -- comma after "link" fixed. Section 3: * Please define, or provide a reference for, "GMPLS". fixed Section 4.1: * "... not inspected by OSPF, that acts as ..." -- s/that/which instead/ fixed Section 5: * Several changes to this paragraph suggested: OLD: On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of application that is not defined as standardized one. We call such application a user defined application. What such application might be is not subject to the standardization and is outside of the scope of this specification. NEW: On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of applications that are not standardized. We call such an application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These applications are not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope of this specification. done. * Is the snapshot of the current content of the Link Attribute Application Identifier Registry needed? The rest of the document doesn't seem to reference it. * I believe it is useful to mention it here. "... to advertise all UDAs." -- although it's fairly clear at this point what a UDA is, I suggest defining it somewhere above, maybe by hanging it off one of the other places where the full name is used such as in the paragraph above I thought the edited paragraph "On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications" defines UDAs clearly. Section 6.1: * Please expand "IPFRR" on first use. done Section 6.2: * "All these can be used ..." -- s/All/All of/ fixed. Section 11: * "- e.g. RSVP-TE -" -- comma after "e.g." * "... one need to make sure ..." -- s/need/needs/ * "... applications, where the enablement ..." -- remove comma * "... such application - e.g. LFA." -- change to "such application. An example of this is LFA." fixed Section 12.3.4: * "Link attributes that are NOT allowed ..." -- s/NOT/not/ fixed. thanks, Peter ___ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
Re: [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: (with COMMENT)
Hi Peter, Murray, On 6/9/20, 6:53 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: Hi Murray, thanks for your comments, please see inline: On 08/06/2020 08:00, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/ > > > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > Three main things from me: > > (1) I found I'm in agreement below with some of the points raised in the posted > OPSDIR review. Please give that another once-over. which ones in particular? I've responded to all of them, so it's hard for me to figure out which ones do you have in mind. I think I've changed all the instances where "which" was being used with a defining clause. See attached diff. Thanks, Acee > > (2) A grammatical point: I think nearly every instance in this document of > "which" should be replaced by "that". I let this be checked by the English language experts :) > > (3) In Section 12.3.3, I don't think it's appropriate to use MUST-type language > to constrain future document authors. What we are saying is that if there is a router in the network that does not understand this new way of advertising the link attributes, all routers MUST continue to advertise it in the old way (on top of possibly advertising new way). What constrain would this pose to future documents? > > And now, my nit-storm: > > Section 1: > * "... attribute advertisements - examples of which ..." -- hyphen should be a > comma * "... for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE." -- s/RSV/RSVP/ * "... > path via that link it will result ..." -- comma after "link" fixed. > > Section 3: > * Please define, or provide a reference for, "GMPLS". fixed > > Section 4.1: > * "... not inspected by OSPF, that acts as ..." -- s/that/which instead/ > fixed > Section 5: > * Several changes to this paragraph suggested: > OLD: > On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized > applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of > application that is not defined as standardized one. We call such > application a user defined application. What such application might > be is not subject to the standardization and is outside of the scope > of this specification. > NEW: > On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized > applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of > applications that are not standardized. We call such an > application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These applications are > not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope > of this specification. done. > > * Is the snapshot of the current content of the Link Attribute Application > Identifier Registry needed? The rest of the document doesn't seem to reference > it. * I believe it is useful to mention it here. "... to advertise all UDAs." -- although it's fairly clear at this point > what a UDA is, I suggest defining it somewhere above, maybe by hanging it off > one of the other places where the full name is used such as in the paragraph > above I thought the edited paragraph "On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications" defines UDAs clearly. > > Section 6.1: > * Please expand "IPFRR" on first use. done > > Section 6.2: > * "All these can be used ..." -- s/All/All of/ fixed. > > Section 11: > * "- e.g. RSVP-TE -" -- comma after "e.g." > * "... one need to make sure ..." -- s/need/needs/ > * "... applications, where the enablement ..." -- remove comma > * "... such application - e.g. LFA." -- change to "such application. An > example of this is LFA." fixed > > Section 12.3.4: > * "Link attributes that are NOT allowed ..." -- s/NOT/not/ fixed. thanks, Peter > > > > > <<< text/html; name="Diff_ draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14.txt.orig - draft-ietf-ospf-te-
Re: [Lsr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: (with COMMENT)
Thanks Acee, I fixed them all. Peter On 09/06/2020 16:59, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi Peter, Murray, On 6/9/20, 6:53 AM, "Peter Psenak" wrote: Hi Murray, thanks for your comments, please see inline: On 08/06/2020 08:00, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-14: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse/ > > > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > Three main things from me: > > (1) I found I'm in agreement below with some of the points raised in the posted > OPSDIR review. Please give that another once-over. which ones in particular? I've responded to all of them, so it's hard for me to figure out which ones do you have in mind. I think I've changed all the instances where "which" was being used with a defining clause. See attached diff. Thanks, Acee > > (2) A grammatical point: I think nearly every instance in this document of > "which" should be replaced by "that". I let this be checked by the English language experts :) > > (3) In Section 12.3.3, I don't think it's appropriate to use MUST-type language > to constrain future document authors. What we are saying is that if there is a router in the network that does not understand this new way of advertising the link attributes, all routers MUST continue to advertise it in the old way (on top of possibly advertising new way). What constrain would this pose to future documents? > > And now, my nit-storm: > > Section 1: > * "... attribute advertisements - examples of which ..." -- hyphen should be a > comma * "... for a link that is not enabled for RSV-TE." -- s/RSV/RSVP/ * "... > path via that link it will result ..." -- comma after "link" fixed. > > Section 3: > * Please define, or provide a reference for, "GMPLS". fixed > > Section 4.1: > * "... not inspected by OSPF, that acts as ..." -- s/that/which instead/ > fixed > Section 5: > * Several changes to this paragraph suggested: > OLD: > On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized > applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of > application that is not defined as standardized one. We call such > application a user defined application. What such application might > be is not subject to the standardization and is outside of the scope > of this specification. > NEW: > On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized > applications, link attributes can be advertised for the purpose of > applications that are not standardized. We call such an > application a "User Defined Application" or "UDA". These applications are > not subject to standardization and are outside of the scope > of this specification. done. > > * Is the snapshot of the current content of the Link Attribute Application > Identifier Registry needed? The rest of the document doesn't seem to reference > it. * I believe it is useful to mention it here. "... to advertise all UDAs." -- although it's fairly clear at this point > what a UDA is, I suggest defining it somewhere above, maybe by hanging it off > one of the other places where the full name is used such as in the paragraph > above I thought the edited paragraph "On top of advertising the link attributes for standardized applications" defines UDAs clearly. > > Section 6.1: > * Please expand "IPFRR" on first use. done > > Section 6.2: > * "All these can be used ..." -- s/All/All of/ fixed. > > Section 11: > * "- e.g. RSVP-TE -" -- comma after "e.g." > * "... one need to make sure ..." -- s/need/needs/ > * "... applications, where the enablement ..." -- remove comma > * "... such application - e.g. LFA." -- change to "such application. An > example of this is LFA." fixed > > Section 12.3.4: > * "Link attributes that are NOT allowed ..." -- s/NOT/not/
