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 -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
