Roni, thanks for your review. David, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Mar 10, 2020, at 4:40 AM, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi David, > Thanks, the new text is clearer > Roni > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Black, David >> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 1:20 AM >> To: Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> Cc: Black, David; last-call@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet- >> ip.all@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Detnet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05 >> >> Hi Roni, >> >> Inline ... >> >> Thanks, --David >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: detnet <detnet-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roni Even via >>> Datatracker >>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 10:44 AM >>> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx >>> Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx; >>> draft-ietf-detnet-ip.all@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: [Detnet] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05 >>> >>> >>> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] >>> >>> Reviewer: Roni Even >>> Review result: Ready with Nits >>> >>> 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 treat these comments just like >>> any other last call comments. >>> >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-?? >>> Reviewer: Roni Even >>> Review Date: 2020-03-09 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-13 >>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>> >>> Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC >>> with nits >>> >>> Major issues: >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> 1. In section 3 the paragraph before the last one " the appropriate >>> DetNet flow-specific information and ensures that the receives the >>> proper traffic treatment within the domain", looks to me that it >>> should be "that the flow receives ..." >> [David>] That looks like what was intended. >> >>> >>> 2. In section 6 I could not parse the second level bullet "When the >>> DSCP field is used in flow identification, a list of field values that >>> may be used by a specific flow." >> [David>] The text after the comma is intended to describe the management and >> control information used to identify the flow, referring back to the DSCP field. >> >> As I'm responsible for this DSCP list "thorn" in the WG's "side" ;-), here's a >> suggestion to improve clarity: >> >> OLD >> * If the DSCP field is to be used in flow identification. >> Ignoring the DSCP filed is optional. >> >> * When the DSCP field is used in flow identification, a list of >> field values that may be used by a specific flow. >> NEW >> * Whether or not the DSCP field is used in flow identification. >> Use of the DSCP field for flow identification is optional. >> >> * If the DSCP field is used to identify a flow, then the flow >> identification information (for that flow) includes a list of >> DSCPs used by that flow. >> >> I took out "that may be used" as including too much detail - that text covers >> situations where not all of the DSCP values are actually used, e.g., there could be >> 5 possible DSCP values for a flow, but only 2 of them occur in actual packets. >> That's not particularly important here, as the logic that determines whether or >> not a packet is part of that flow has to match on all 5 possible DSCP values. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> detnet mailing list >>> detnet@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
