Hi Ben, Thank you very much for the review comments. Please see inline responses from authors of the document on the comments. Hi Sherpherd and AD, we will update a version very soon. thanks a lot. Weiming ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-forces-interop-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-05-13 IETF LC End Date: 2013-05-13 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few minor questions and editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. *** Major issues: None. *** Minor issues: -- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of an incorrect implementation or differing encapsulation formats. Does this suggest that the specifications should be clarified? In particular, in the case of encapsulation format mismatch, should the specs include stronger requirements to be able to receive all encapsulation formats? Or should the number of options be reduced? [Re. by ΕΗ] The protocol provides a number of different approaches [Re. by Weiming] The key issue is still from the deep understanding of the protocol from implementations. I still have not seen need for any urgent change for the protocol. -- I have a mild concern that the use of origin country names for each implementation could confuse readers into thinking that the countries themselves officially participated, rather than organizations from each country. [Re by EH]Makes sense. We should possibly change this. In the beginning of section 2.2.1 where it says: "The University of Patras implementation joined remotely from Greece" Change to: "The University of Patras (UoP) implementation joined remotely from Greece" And then use UoP after that for us. [Re. by Weiming] I agree with Evangelos on this. If possible (key issue might be the text space for some figures) we may change the G to UoP, the J to NTT, the C to ZJSU ? Other authors, please show your views. Thanks. -- section 4.4, last paragraph: The text says that since the mentioned failures were likely the result of bugs, it doesn't indicate an interoperability problem in the specs. I have to point out that, it also doesn't prove interoperability in both directions for the particular test. It would also be worth commenting on whether the probably bugs were programming errors rather than misunderstandings of the specification. [Re. by Weiming] to change the whole paragraph to: <t> The two test items failed. Note that Test #7 and #8 were identical to the tests, only with CE and FE implementers were exchanged. Moreover, test #12 and #13 showed that the redirect channel worked well. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that the problem caused the failure was from the implementations, rather than from the ForCES protocol itself or from misunderstanding of implementations on the protocol specification. Although the failure made the OSPF interoperability test incomplete, it did not show interoperability problem. More test work is needed to verify the OSPF interoperability.</t> *** Nits/editorial comments: -- The draft uses inconsistent verb tense throughout. I found this a bit confusing, as I assume the draft talks entirely about tests that have already occurred. [Re. by ΕΗ] We will stick with the past tense. -- IDNits points out that you have several references without explicit citations. I see that you called the references out by name in the text, but it would be better to include the citations. [Re. by Weiming]We will try to fix this as much as possible. -- Section 1, paragraph 6: Please expand abbreviations on first mention. [Re. by Weiming] Yes. -- Section 1.1: Please expand FE on first mention. [Re. by Weiming] Yes. -- section 2.2.2, paragraph 1: "... from China and Japan implementations..." Missing "the". Is it possible to add a reference for details on the Smartbits testing machine? -- Figure 2: Do you really want to publish the IP addresses used in an RFC? RFCs live forever... -- Section 2.2.2, paragraph after figure 2: First sentence does not parse. [Re. by Weiming] In Figure 2, changed the '124.90.146.218 (ADSL)' to ' (ADSL)'. In Figure 3, changed the '150.140.254.110(VPN)' to '(VPN)' to avoid personal IP address in public. Section 2.2.2, paragraph after figure 2, first sentence is changed to: <t>CE and FE from the Greece implementation were located within the University of Patras, Greece, and were connected together using LAN as shown in <xref target="Figure-3"/>. Connetion to the Internet was via a VPN channel. </t> [/Re] -- Figure 3: The figure has some formatting issues, at least in the PDF version. Also, is it possible to avoid splitting the figure across the page break? [Re. by Weiming] ok, we'll try. [/Re] -- section 3.2, paragraph 3: "Because of system deficiency to deploy IPSec over TML in Greece,..." Phrase doesn't parse. -- section 3.2, paragraph 4: "... over IPSec channel." Missing "the". "...to have established..." to establish. [Re. by Weiming] The section 3.2 para.3 has been changed to: <t>... Because there came unfortunately a problem with the test system in Greece to deploy IPSec over TML during the test process, this test only took place between test systems in China and Japan.</t> Other nits are also corrected. thanks. [/Re] -- section 4 and subsections: It seems like some of the test descriptions in 4.X may be redundant to the previous scenario descriptions. [Re. by Weiming] previous section 3.x is the scenario description, and the 4.x related section is the test results. -- section 4.1, notes on 28 and 29: Sentence does not parse. ... notes on 30 and 31: Missing articles. [Re. by Weiming]The two notes (Note on test #28 and #29 and note on test #30 and #31 are vaguae. After considerations, we decide to remove thess two notes. Thanks. [/Re.] -- section 5.1, last paragraph in list item "2.": "The interoperability test witnessed that..." The test _showed_... [or the _testers_ witnessed...] [Re. by Weiming] modified to 'The interoperability testers witnessed that...". Thanks. [/Re.] -- section 9: It would be worth mentioning that you explicitly tested for IPSec support. [Re. by Weiming] As a result, the section has been updated as: 9. Security Considerations Developers of ForCES FEs and CEs must take the security considerations of the ForCES Framework [RFC3746] and the ForCES Protocol [RFC5810] into account. Also, as specified in the security considerations section of the SCTP-Based TML for the ForCES Protocol [RFC5811], the transport-level security has to be ensured by IPsec.Test results of TML with IPsec supported have been shown in Section 4.2 of the document. [/Re.]