Loa, Thanks, that is very helpful.
Bob > On Jan 20, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu> wrote: > > Bob, > > > Here is the docx-file, it is not exactly the same version as I used to > create the txt-file, since I continued to look at the figure for the > reference topology, and in that process I also corrected a spelling > erros and cleared up the text for some comments. > > The only real change is that I have added an alternative to the figure > (note: no problems with the topology itself) for the reference topology > at the end of the docx file. > > /Loa > > On 20/01/2020 19:12, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Loa, >> Thanks for doing the review. I think it may be worthwhile to also send out >> the .docx file in addition to the text version. >> Bob >>> On Jan 19, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Loa Andersson <l...@pi.nu> wrote: >>> >>> WG, >>> >>> I have reviewed the entire document. >>> >>> First, I'm not an IPv6 expert. >>> >>> As far as I can see the sued on >>> >>> I have not used github, I had a couple of attempts to learn the tools, >>> but so far I have failed. >>> >>> I have instead done what I use to do, use the review tool with Word. >>> >>> Since I sometimes have a pushback on the docx-format I save the result >>> as a .txt-file. Drawback is that all comment show up as refrences to a >>> list at the end of the document. But you can't get everything. >>> >>> >>> /Loa >>> >>> PS gives this output for this draft; it is quite a lot and in itself are >>> so much that it is worth sending it bck to the authors and asking them >>> to fix it. Was the noits tool checked at all before starting the wglc? >>> >>> idnits 2.16.02 >>> >>> /tmp/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt: >>> >>> Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see >>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No issues found here. >>> >>> Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> No issues found here. >>> >>> Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one >>> being 6 characters in excess of 72. >>> >>> == There are 5 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses >>> in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be >>> changed. >>> >>> >>> Miscellaneous warnings: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not >>> match the current year >>> >>> -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not >>> defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a requirements expression, it >>> should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119; >>> otherwise it should not be all-uppercase. >>> >>> == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, >>> is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using >>> 'MUST >>> NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). >>> >>> Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: >>> >>> To perform ICMPv6 ping to a target SID an echo request message is >>> generated by the initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the >>> segment-list of the SRH immediately preceding the target SID. There MAY >>> or MAY NOT be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID. >>> >>> == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, >>> is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using >>> 'MUST >>> NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). >>> >>> Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: >>> >>> To traceroute a target SID a probe message is generated by the >>> initiator with the END.OP or END.OTP SID in the segment-list of the SRH >>> immediately preceding the target SID. There MAY or MAY NOT be >>> additional >>> segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID. >>> >>> -- The document date (December 18, 2019) is 32 days in the past. Is this >>> intentional? >>> >>> >>> Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references >>> to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) >>> >>> == Missing Reference: 'SL' is mentioned on line 190, but not defined >>> >>> -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 191 >>> >>> -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 191 >>> >>> -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 192 >>> >>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC7011' is mentioned on line 230, but not defined >>> >>> == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext' is mentioned on line >>> 241, but not defined >>> >>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC792' is mentioned on line 701, but not defined >>> >>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC 8403' is mentioned on line 660, but not defined >>> >>> == Unused Reference: 'RFC0792' is defined on line 823, but no explicit >>> reference was found in the text >>> >>> == Unused Reference: 'RFC8403' is defined on line 843, but no explicit >>> reference was found in the text >>> >>> == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of >>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-06 >>> >>> >>> Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). >>> >>> Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about >>> the items above. >>> >>> On 05/12/2019 04:53, Ole Troan wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> As agreed in the working group session in Singapore, this message starts >>>> a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: >>>> Title : Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment >>>> Routing Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6) >>>> Author : Z. Ali, C. Filsfils, S. Matsushima, D. Voyer, M. Chen >>>> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-02 >>>> Pages : 23 >>>> Date : 2019-11-20 >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam/ >>>> as a Proposed Standard. >>>> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this >>>> document should be directed to the mailing list. >>>> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author. This last call will end >>>> on the 18th of December 2019. >>>> To improve document quality and ensure that bugs are caught as early as >>>> possible, we would require at least >>>> two reviewers to do a complete review of the document. Please let the >>>> chairs know if you are willing to be a reviewer. >>>> The last call will be forwarded to the spring working group, with >>>> discussion directed to the ipv6 list. >>>> Thanks, >>>> Bob & Ole, 6man co-chairs >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >>>> i...@ietf.org >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu >>> Senior MPLS Expert >>> Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >>> <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt> > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu > Senior MPLS Expert > Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > <draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03-A.docx>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
