Erik, thanks for your review. Les, thanks for the updates. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Apr 18, 2019, at 12:26 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Erik - > > Thanx for the detailed review. > I have published V24 of the draft which addresses all of your comments (and a few pending AD review comments from Alvaro). > Some exceptions noted below. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 7:20 PM >> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> Cc: lsr@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- >> extensions.all@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions- >> 23 >> >> Reviewer: Erik Kline >> 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-isis-segment-routing-extensions-?? >> Reviewer: Erik Kline >> Review Date: 2019-04-17 >> IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-17 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: >> >> For what little I know of IS-IS and segment routing, this all seems to make >> general sense. I simply had some language/style nits (below). >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> # Section 1 >> >> * "SR's control-plane can be applied ..., and do not require...". It looks >> like the subject of the sentence is "control-plane" and so perhaps "do not" >> should be "does not". >> >> * s/draft/document/g >> >> # Section 2.1 >> >> * "Algorithms identifiers" -> "Algorithm identifiers" >> >> # Section 2.2.2 >> >> * Length: variable >> >> Should this say "11-12" (1 + 1 + 6 + 3-4)? >> > [Les:] No. System ID may be a value from 1-8 octets in length (though in practice only the value 6 is used). I have clarified the text to mention that this field is of "ID Length" (as per ISO 10589). > >> * "set of Adj-SID each router" -> "set of Adj-SIDs each router", perhaps. >> >> # Section 2.3 >> >> s/valu eis/value is/ >> >> # Section 2.4 >> >> Silly, naive question: does the length include the sum of the octets >> representing the sub-TLVs? >> > [Les:] Yes. TLV length includes all of the data contained in the TLV - including sub-TLVs. > > Les > >> # Section 2.4.6 >> >> In example 3, I would recommend s/0xD/0x0D/ & s/0x0/0x00/ & s/0x1/0x01/ >> , >> but perhaps that's just a personal readability thing. >> >> # Section 3.3 >> >> * "by other components than" -> "by components other than", perhaps. >> >> * "to know what are the local SIDs" -> "to know what the local SIDs are", >> perhaps. >> >> * "The SRLB sub-TLV is used for this purpose...", (instead of "that purpose") >> maybe. >> >> * "which mechanisms are outside" -> "which are outside", maybe. >> >> * "the SRLB TLV" -> "the SRLB sub-TLV", I think. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
