Hi Nagendra,
Thank You for addressing my issues! I am happy with the outcome, and have no further issues.
Regards,
Christer
From: Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <naikumar@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: tiistai 31. elokuuta 2021 23.22
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04
Hi Christer,
Thank you for the detailed review and apologies for the very late response. Please find the response below:
Q1:
The Abstract and Introductions says:
"This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3."
I suggest to say "specifies" or "defines" instead of "proposes".
<Authors> Sure. We will update the same.
Q2:
Would it be more clear to call Section 6 "Update to RFC 8287"?
<Authors> Ok.
Q3:
Section 6 says:
"This document specifies that the above code points will be used only for
OSPFv2."
I suggest to be more explicit, and say something like:
"This document updates RFC 8287, by specifying that the "OSPF" code points
will be used only for OSPFv2."
<Authors> Ok.
Q4:
Section 7.2 adds a note to the IANA registry for the existing "OSPF" code
point. Should this specification also be added as a reference for the existing
"OSPF" code point (in addition to RFC 8287?
<Authors>It already includes the code point as below:
“IANA is also requested to add a note for the existing entry for code
point 1 (OSPF) to read: - "To be used for OSPFv2 only".
“
Please let us know if you are referring to something else.
Thanks,
Nagendra
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Almost Ready
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-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2021-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: The document is easy to read, and is almost ready for publication.
However, I do have a few editorial comments that I would like the authors to
address.
Major issues: N/A
Minor issues: N/A
Nits/editorial comments:
Q1:
The Abstract and Introductions says:
"This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3."
I suggest to say "specifies" or "defines" instead of "proposes".
Q2:
Would it be more clear to call Section 6 "Update to RFC 8287"?
Q3:
Section 6 says:
"This document specifies that the above code points will be used only for
OSPFv2."
I suggest to be more explicit, and say something like:
"This document updates RFC 8287, by specifying that the "OSPF" code points
will be used only for OSPFv2."
Q4:
Section 7.2 adds a note to the IANA registry for the existing "OSPF" code
point. Should this specification also be added as a reference for the existing
"OSPF" code point (in addition to RFC 8287?
