Hi Jinmei,
Many thanks for your feedback and confirming the changes.
I have noted the typo and it will be corrected.
Thanks
Bala’zs
From: JINMEI Tatuya /
神明達哉 <jinmei@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 7:22 AM
To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: int-dir@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09
Thank you for addressing my comments. I've checked the -11 version and confirmed these have been addressed.
One very minor nit: in Section 4.6, "an not only within" should be "and not only within".
(BTW, I've just realized there was a typo in my suggested text for section 1. I meant to say "collectively" but somehow it was changed to "correctly", which is obviously wrong. I see this word is removed in -11, and that's fine for me).
Hi Tatuya,
Many thanks for your review and proposed changes.
They were added to v10 of the draft, uploaded recently.
Regarding " Section 4.6 and Figure 5", the purpose is to
show the improvement compared to RFC8939.
We have extended the text to highlight the improvement
and added an explicit reference to RFC8939.
Thanks & Cheers
Bala'zs
-----Original Message-----
From: Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:15 PM
To: int-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: detnet@xxxxxxxx;
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof.all@xxxxxxxx;
last-call@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09
Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09.txt>. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.
Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO OBJECTION.
This document is generally well-written, and it provides a straightforward solution to the stated motivation (specifying the encoding of sequence information in DetNet IP packets). To the extent of my limited understanding of DetNet and related technologies,
I've not found any issue.
The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document:
I have a few comments that might help improve readability of the document.
- Introduction:
The DetNet Working Group has defined Packet Replication (PRF), Packet
Elimination (PEF) and Packet Ordering (POF) functions to provide
service protection by the DetNet service sub-layer [RFC8655]. The
PREOF service protection method relies on copies of the same packet
I'd suggest updating the first sentence to, e.g., "...functions (correctly
represented as PREOF)...", so that readers won't be puzzled about the acronym
when they read the second sentence. (abstract defines the term, but I think
it's better if the main text is more self-contained).
- Section 4.1, Figure 2: what "d-CW" stands for is explained in Section 4.2, but not here or before. It's more reader friendly to note it when it first occurs.
- Section 4.4: it may be more reader friendly to explain what PW stands for
here:
In the first case, the different DetNet PWs use the same UDP tunnel,
perhaps it's obvious for readers with sufficient background, but this
document generally seems to expand many acronyms, so it would be more
consistent.
- Section 4.6 and Figure 5: the purpose of this section and the figure is not clear to me. Do we need this section at all?
|
