From nobody Fri Jun 1 11:42:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DEA126B72; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:42:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk CC: db3546@att.com, Matthew Bocci , matthew.bocci@nokia.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <152787855005.15284.14267283113865463271.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:42:30 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Last Call: (Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 18:42:30 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services WG (pals) to consider the following document: - 'Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-06-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The pseudowire (PW) encapsulation of Ethernet, as defined in RFC 4448, specifies that the use of the control word (CW) is optional. In the absence of the CW an Ethernet pseudowire packet can be misidentified as an IP packet by a label switching router (LSR). This in turn may lead to the selection of the wrong equal-cost-multi- path (ECMP) path for the packet, leading in turn to the misordering of packets. This problem has become more serious due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6. The use of the Ethernet PW CW addresses this problem. This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control word in all but exceptional circumstances. This document updates RFC 4448. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Mon Jun 11 20:30:55 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03033130F1B; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:30:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Brian Carpenter To: Cc: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:30:51 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 03:30:51 -0000 Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review result: Ready with Nits Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 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 . Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2018-06-12 IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 Summary: Ready with nits -------- Comments: --------- This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Bad Thing. Nits: ----- > 1. Introduction ... > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control > word in all but exceptional circumstances. That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4). > 3. Background ... > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this > problem: > > https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html No, it's no longer recent. How about: For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this problem: > 7. Operational Considerations > > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the PW. The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. From nobody Tue Jun 12 10:51:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FECF130F83; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:51:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wPEl4JrK7Twi; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x243.google.com (mail-oi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDAC130F78; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x243.google.com with SMTP id h79-v6so21880637oig.13; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:51:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PgF0ocTq9kwYPXoVI7UZXtm1OXAnpoN9vv6LKQn+zew=; b=VqHr9Dlmzd91OOu5/kZJzcY7oMBdS6ssV/p+1FYz5gS+FomdhwvfCljFWoHtWkjb1m 05/GIIHbZbux4LHhaTvsOAmYCb3p+UYVv/xWAW1RWga0ffmbgy3rYxh6FAqU6ihMTXzL 07gj+NoDVBWd3TkDkYazXSnV3YhDLlDtFRbp/M3CE9ETqZPv3YGZW68Kxt6BI8tocIq3 CqNuHaijJUuzYwtCLWFZDrhGiCyLtqW25s8W+yGMGNF97Y/rF+/RiZZiJz7l4aqaeAYI qSVuUOpu2MhnmXmTkgfAAamMcYoRfXZndUgV4T2P8NDn293b6pSk6QpveLTofQ6sbnyu cVSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PgF0ocTq9kwYPXoVI7UZXtm1OXAnpoN9vv6LKQn+zew=; b=TwfCQaiM0IoE94AdvSB6kCbGqlVP3HpW21kApvTvmTp8fgIl3pMsB7h8bKWYyg2X2B ZymcyZGBAXLy8Pj558nvxoduIcAc9rbx3FE2ka2C0r4V/NyYbmUA6M6JOqYY7Qglp0KK GlZebGpj4dmFMlir5vTi27ftXmjiPy4HTz+0Rd7jWW3T18870yVo8TOOjjRrZpaIwfng 2p7yZ92DHp7CrmAdVkJxEJhuJRuXQxKtiKNfUUend/U0iN1o1f77hjiWOLViJwDf2SZw 8XhzlIPUfJvxUV3nOAsJXNyGCTnFmwOj6DcI3L30lNAidB49cULA2X4drFjIaerir51S 8gFA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0Q8o9bDKsL/2ODDjl3vzzvNZge8icnp52uVsOZZ229ZaBdGqyt DabOwFhn6f15jUD0VHrt6YYzkciuFMemv+p5XCk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKK6bj40bDHqS4vC30Xv+ZZffasevn7VtEEosHkITELNWZ19UqATDsqreXR4+wcUelsY6hMBfm2M5uK6mDhLx7A= X-Received: by 2002:aca:e6c2:: with SMTP id d185-v6mr2378341oih.154.1528825871664; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:51:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:30c3:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:50:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:50:51 -0400 Message-ID: To: Brian Carpenter Cc: General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000010a87056e758385" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:51:16 -0000 --000000000000010a87056e758385 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Brian, Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Nits > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 > > 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 > . > > Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2018-06-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 > > Summary: Ready with nits > -------- > > Comments: > --------- > > This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a > Bad Thing. > > Nits: > ----- > > > 1. Introduction > ... > > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control > > word in all but exceptional circumstances. > > That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of > section 4). > > > 3. Background > ... > > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this > > problem: > > > > https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html > > No, it's no longer recent. How about: > > For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this > problem: > > > 7. Operational Considerations > > > > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be > > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. > > That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: > > A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the > PW. > The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. > > --000000000000010a87056e758385 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brian,

Thanks, your comments are much a= ppreciated.

Cheers,
Andy

<= /div>

On Mon= , Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter= @gmail.com> wrote:
Reviewer= : Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

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.=C2=A0 Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/= trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits
--------

Comments:
---------

This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Ba= d Thing.

Nits:
-----

> 1.=C2=A0 Introduction
...
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowir= e control
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0word in all but exceptional circumstances.

That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of = section 4).

> 3.=C2=A0 Background
...
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted t= his
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0problem:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://mailman.= nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted thi= s
=C2=A0 =C2=A0problem:

> 7.=C2=A0 Operational Considerations
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration a= nd may be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. =

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used = on the PW.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW.

--000000000000010a87056e758385-- From nobody Mon Jun 18 03:42:08 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4E3130E84; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 03:41:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci , pals-chairs@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152931851750.2709.5220766914924187998.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 03:41:57 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-?= =?utf-8?q?ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:41:58 -0000 Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One minor recommend edit: Given that this drafts updates RFC4448 to a MUST, maybe s/This document recommends /This document requires/ From nobody Mon Jun 18 10:45:06 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2EC130DF9; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:45:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=vVb34F5z; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HYKzxNwL Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7MutOEie_Pa; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BADA812872C; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25EF922050; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:44:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=08e2jknh/BeZeAo7nin0Nu/6D4GrTjyzP+iXTflgn7Q=; b=vVb34F5z +rT96aXIAUt+t0SeTyRl7tvBymdBCo00jiGuiz7jALcxRbJ6y/iXzDOoSzm1OJeh jUj8z8OcHpboZh2dfineqLl3VZW0OP6aQBjZoorbBgYVh5HrfdsqB7403EuxXi42 Yke6Zgc7AW7WlKcbncLNFFBgMXnEL/gR+UUBgLqg5ljNvbJR5VNESUpJm5/WiArl 7ecexTSa4pqiTnUN/7wG6MFCOYv3s3VSrmrXFrRPQarTUGYPcVuczzUgUU4Sb0OE uQ7PBKR5PB6W2nPpZxOhjB4+RG0mgVmZ1nSSr3kr7P3PK7aLkM+Wz526RIPB46L5 zXLeMLC9lC5UEQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=08e2jknh/BeZeAo7nin0Nu/6D4GrT jyzP+iXTflgn7Q=; b=HYKzxNwLTAW7Rca4Jp8fPIVMsWnrVn6BuVuoKPBrVc9Rj Nq+GoAfd57+JVkP+lIGG+uWIeHxLdM1D4BBElIQY1a2M/tJtjowXGveUtNgxRUhp NsAXDZP7sNvS4cAa1biQWpwY1aHugqnssm4eEfiy79lzL3Ad8TDcBS4mGqQfCOkT TCoOZiXF7qPEY9Y2RDheFCt0biza+NclIiNOfxIIDvMvW+h2smUEl4HyApKnuquD a+cHxYfFDCfHnVooIBiyWAfu1giEQj920FCebWg3cgvClZ245tSVh5h794jkFGP/ gKjVaQlzmjiv2cCvjwwFLCetuAnrELSs1LChb0u6g== X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from [172.19.249.89] (unknown [104.153.224.166]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1D25FE442C; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:44:49 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0E6BC772-F223-4DB0-BD2F-AF1B71A8C17B" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:44:41 -0400 Cc: General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, "Andrew G. Malis" Message-Id: <22883AA3-E923-4294-95AD-9DC1C7E37391@cooperw.in> References: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Brian Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:45:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0E6BC772-F223-4DB0-BD2F-AF1B71A8C17B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; hopefully = it means Brian=E2=80=99s comments will be addressed? I have entered a No = Objection ballot. Alissa > On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis = wrote: >=20 > Brian, >=20 > Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. >=20 > Cheers, > Andy >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter = > = wrote: > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Nits >=20 > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 >=20 > 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. >=20 > For more information, please see the FAQ at > >. >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2018-06-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 >=20 > Summary: Ready with nits > -------- >=20 > Comments:=20 > --------- >=20 > This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are = a Bad Thing. >=20 > Nits: > ----- >=20 > > 1. Introduction > .... > > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire = control > > word in all but exceptional circumstances. >=20 > That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of = section 4). >=20 > > 3. Background > .... > > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this > > problem: > > > > = https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html = >=20 > No, it's no longer recent. How about: >=20 > For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this > problem: >=20 > > 7. Operational Considerations > > > > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may = be > > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled.=20 >=20 > That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: >=20 > A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on = the PW.=20 > The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art --Apple-Mail=_0E6BC772-F223-4DB0-BD2F-AF1B71A8C17B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks = for your response; hopefully it means Brian=E2=80=99s comments will be = addressed? I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

On = Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> = wrote:

Brian,

Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, = Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> = wrote:
Reviewer: Brian = Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits
--------

Comments:
---------

This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a = Bad Thing.

Nits:
-----

> 1.  Introduction
....
>   This document recommends the use of the Ethernet = pseudowire control
>   word in all but exceptional circumstances.
=
That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of = section 4).

> 3.  Background
....
>   A recent posting on the Nanog email list has = highlighted this
>   problem:
>
>   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

   For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted = this
   problem:

> 7.  Operational Considerations
>
>   CW presence on the PW is controlled by the = configuration and may be
>   subject to default operational mode of not being = enabled.

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:

   A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is = used on the PW.
   The default configuration might be to disable use of the = CW.


_______________________________________________
Gen-art = mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

= --Apple-Mail=_0E6BC772-F223-4DB0-BD2F-AF1B71A8C17B-- From nobody Mon Jun 18 11:44:53 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61993130E29; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r27HFPquREx8; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69071294D0; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id h79-v6so15775837oig.13; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Uzl8nFLYvEcAi9H6BhpmAzyZ8j6tG7LFdMnWzgTb9TM=; b=ibfEKcM/cGQVWhfGYr5mes561PRyHpgEj2wiOWekomtnS2QrfAZmIaRTeAUNF5sWFQ 4LRgWC5GQdSliEhqfUxfrXimr8UIM0uYCIkpjEEdHrB3RkbNyLeJfW+wFXsnrbs/p415 rZ4xmTeuy8R9/aM0N25u/tCVHkud/CGFHk4yseDVYqcf/wKeOgYUUQKd0ewJ3waxwqWP 6XkVxrYoS71zmw/9uBkSDn7O227c/ilB0SgpEH7sRE/+qCNaiBlGIQNNRx0yE3KUrnbx 4cWlnDxi4pbFl/w61ekzXSEZ0FPfSNT6wz2Td5N6eHV8WEXvGR8Rn9CVJ7BpjdWtDd2b lI2Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Uzl8nFLYvEcAi9H6BhpmAzyZ8j6tG7LFdMnWzgTb9TM=; b=tz/cT+cH30mOROS/8JIJR+RC1O8bAFU1/eKfQHGk/JeZtcXAWCys0LkaZBiVIxIIG5 RYT5257Ei10zoahc19gIuJS5BV3eSSljGcfxPDloy8id7NCe5v1qQ7bKDiFxBrz9xm4j Cf1rApDYnlT+WIfx4uH2on+iSRIsb2rJJ4KeGQDY1Yk+2bvZ0fuepbzQNKRRqPzRjI++ XAkkFKP7NINoR/nrr31ylYpcJQ5UYLCPD3kl+xKIm2Dv9DPUKQsTjCrLf6Eu7NSGXSpH 7RDPkBDfOx8N5m0NRO5PtfNx4+clydiiVEd22Ztljbe5eh57c37cXp8KfyXm7aysw+C1 cdGw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0E0lJoQAXuAtPQI4TS5gjprb851R/kGO1NpYLPP9FQB/qWHpai SxLgX1JeUKMMuNd309I+ivtZfOMrbi+pX5UPiio= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJ8Gh//lKbqReq6QEa6QfPallKYFOPLPxxk5RlAT4VVhstr9alLWJDPOmIoxDmDGvmpZ3flVbiSRn8sftQtCwA= X-Received: by 2002:aca:e6c2:: with SMTP id d185-v6mr7026624oih.154.1529347488100; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:30c3:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <22883AA3-E923-4294-95AD-9DC1C7E37391@cooperw.in> References: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> <22883AA3-E923-4294-95AD-9DC1C7E37391@cooperw.in> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:44:27 -0400 Message-ID: To: Alissa Cooper Cc: Brian Carpenter , General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, Stewart Bryant , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c434a2056eeef5a7" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:44:52 -0000 --000000000000c434a2056eeef5a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Alissa, Yes, they will be. We were waiting for all LC comments to come in, and it looks like we=E2=80=99ve reached the end of the LC period. We=E2=80=99ll ch= eck with Deborah for guidance on when to update. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; hopefully > it means Brian=E2=80=99s comments will be addressed? I have entered a No = Objection > ballot. > > Alissa > > On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Brian, > > Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 >> >> 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 >> . >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2018-06-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 >> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> -------- >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a >> Bad Thing. >> >> Nits: >> ----- >> >> > 1. Introduction >> .... >> > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control >> > word in all but exceptional circumstances. >> >> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of >> section 4). >> >> > 3. Background >> .... >> > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this >> > problem: >> > >> > https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html >> >> No, it's no longer recent. How about: >> >> For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this >> problem: >> >> > 7. Operational Considerations >> > >> > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be >> > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. >> >> That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: >> >> A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the >> PW. >> The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > > --000000000000c434a2056eeef5a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Alissa,

Yes, they will be. We were wait= ing for all LC comments to come in, and it looks like we=E2=80=99ve reached= the end of the LC period. We=E2=80=99ll check with Deborah for guidance on= when to update.

Cheers,
Andy
=

O= n Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response;= hopefully it means Brian=E2=80=99s comments will be addressed? I have ente= red a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:5= 0 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

Brian,

Thanks, your comments are much apprec= iated.

Cheers,
Andy

=

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <= span dir=3D"ltr"><brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
Reviewer: Brian Car= penter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

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.=C2=A0 Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/= trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits
--------

Comments:
---------

This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Ba= d Thing.

Nits:
-----

> 1.=C2=A0 Introduction
....
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowir= e control
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0word in all but exceptional circumstances.

That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of = section 4).

> 3.=C2=A0 Background
 ....
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted t= his
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0problem:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://mailman.= nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted thi= s
=C2=A0 =C2=A0problem:

> 7.=C2=A0 Operational Considerations
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration a= nd may be
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. =

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used = on the PW.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing lis= t
Gen-art@ietf.org=
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


--000000000000c434a2056eeef5a7-- From nobody Mon Jun 18 13:38:36 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3BA130EFE; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:38:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alvaro Retana To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci , pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152935430237.3319.17853470555066073876.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:38:22 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:38:25 -0000 Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The title of the document is "Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED", which hints at the corresponding rfc2119 keyword: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. That seems to be in line with the description in the Introduction: "This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control word in all but exceptional circumstances." However, the qualified recommendation is that if "both the ingress PE and the egress PE support the Ethernet pseudowire control word, then the CW MUST be used". What are the "exceptional circumstances"? Should that "MUST" be a "SHOULD"? Should the use be further qualified? This comment is not a showstopper, just a minor misalignment. From nobody Tue Jun 19 02:36:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B2B1310CD; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:36:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gb73jYVUNdNB; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE591310CA; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id o13-v6so18701343wmf.4; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:36:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=QgU/QsXunmQXr2g6cUmciYee9IKDE56w+y0ke9LbBeQ=; b=e5tTs4KZpAj9axItbqD5okoD8fs0dOHsz56GOuTXZE0ib+WELl3jMe2enCpMx8Yw7M inlYmwtXLxzp3f09HgpGMUMG0PIbnWnSTUervnSx2fONGtL1cpy8RRxOlbGm7jQ17yr5 3WNQoAJ33F8AOVlI0KpeBjnO2Ih1zRhZSxYG0OVSEMZxfPtvoNQXDgbBo3oT+zB9sv9S pfk51neahDJf1PJy4VJRvJFz2P9cG0zvMps8qAP+yLzNLLBp//8Jw7MCzMRwQRP9Nzg+ +urzioPFGnxTRlFh9JUudob07vbgpZhIX18XyK9UwVBAtLogD36UIPP6VDe5imfnfPiB AnIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=QgU/QsXunmQXr2g6cUmciYee9IKDE56w+y0ke9LbBeQ=; b=a9TCO0V2TTo4G7ZhPCUj4wYxArNZlnmUYlHLDyvolqSCrmctAPFZ2P/SEATL58SIiS BHh+diTA1yijW8Ecro+EuY1tHYb0JDqGDEW3p4R1t4gE3kMFcpYuyXkWVOv+gOx5c3A6 E7+ZEh7qy5yD181ieSIaad34c92w4vQCUNkJCBjb5cgwMJCtQBKQtcepLGiHU7nsaD7E ZwO2cWR+mFlbbdx3C8bxiegE71bGKfUvT2vbdQsdTJtsn+twRYfinWUWb9e7nFS7YTpD oqEevdctHnCW2cvOi2clRmAo2EjTaQAsjm+qFAG+NpMg8ElLE9BS1W5hdIpohuI75utH JHwg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E04sypIrkZ/Kr3uitkjRwTaFJUz1cxKspq0ppuZu5gnhBqqsdfn UgkNQQi5PCetxTzfbbQpQpM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIqeRQWGI6BZwEATZssViS+2umlBJxY6e1MXl9uul2wNScXgHK+eOClXmWq/UXKMrwfs9t/Jw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d7c3:: with SMTP id o186-v6mr10898966wmg.67.1529400969913; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.105] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n71-v6sm14214669wmi.14.2018.06.19.02.36.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 02:36:09 -0700 (PDT) To: Alissa Cooper , Brian Carpenter Cc: General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, "Andrew G. Malis" References: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> <22883AA3-E923-4294-95AD-9DC1C7E37391@cooperw.in> From: Stewart Bryant Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:35:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <22883AA3-E923-4294-95AD-9DC1C7E37391@cooperw.in> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0D1B87CA22C1181D4C9B255C" Content-Language: en-GB Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:36:15 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0D1B87CA22C1181D4C9B255C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Alissa Yes, we will address all review comments that we receive. - Stewart On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; > hopefully it means Brian’s comments will be addressed? I have entered > a No Objection ballot. > > Alissa > >> On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis > > wrote: >> >> Brian, >> >> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter >> > wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 >> >> 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 >> > >. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2018-06-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 >> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> -------- >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer >> violations are a Bad Thing. >> >> Nits: >> ----- >> >> > 1.  Introduction >> .... >> >   This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire >> control >> >   word in all but exceptional circumstances. >> >> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first >> paragraph of section 4). >> >> > 3.  Background >> .... >> >   A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this >> >   problem: >> > >> > >> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html >> >> >> No, it's no longer recent. How about: >> >>    For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this >>    problem: >> >> > 7.  Operational Considerations >> > >> >   CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and >> may be >> >   subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. >> >> That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: >> >>    A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used >> on the PW. >>    The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > --------------0D1B87CA22C1181D4C9B255C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Alissa

Yes, we will address all review comments that we receive.

- Stewart



On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; hopefully it means Brian’s comments will be addressed? I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

Brian,

Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits
--------

Comments:
---------

This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Bad Thing.

Nits:
-----

> 1.  Introduction
....
>   This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
>   word in all but exceptional circumstances.

That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4).

> 3.  Background
....
>   A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this
>   problem:
>
>   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

   For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this
   problem:

> 7.  Operational Considerations
>
>   CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be
>   subject to default operational mode of not being enabled.

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:

   A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the PW.
   The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW.


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


--------------0D1B87CA22C1181D4C9B255C-- From nobody Tue Jun 19 20:00:05 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B391B130FD6; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:59:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Ben Campbell To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci , pals-chairs@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152946359572.32509.4203271875304715378.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:59:55 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 03:00:03 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Others have mentioned it seems odd that the document says (in several places) that it recommends use of the CW, but section 4 says "MUST". In particular, the document _title_ says RECOMMENDED in all caps, which could be interpreted as an attempt at normative language. I think this is likely to confuse at least some readers. §3: The "recent posting" is from 2016. Calling that "recent" is already a bit dated. From nobody Wed Jun 20 11:19:19 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36597130DCD; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:19:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Spencer Dawkins To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci , pals-chairs@ietf.org, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, pals@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <152951875020.28521.17434622502794226440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:19:10 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:19:11 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In this text, This problem has recently become more serious for a number of reasons. Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC). Secondly, concerns over privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy. Random assignment results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time in eight. the problem caused by the second case is explained well, but the problem caused by the first reason is not. Would it be correct to say This problem has recently become more serious for a number of reasons. Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC). Any addresses that start with either of these two values can be misidentified. Secondly, concerns over privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy. Random assignment results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time in eight. ? From nobody Wed Jun 20 11:39:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A4A130FA5; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7oEqIGMgXkrU; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot0-x244.google.com (mail-ot0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A01FD130E17; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot0-x244.google.com with SMTP id p95-v6so645596ota.5; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j+OaEZS3gTAUWW55upZOhYcgDx0ZIRi0qIunM5TKkSk=; b=WeXzP5QSQzLm0eqf0L02P894vVcExx9dx8/ySCF5D6XkQVjFqdwWrkMc6xBz7NQVTa TdP+QtePywU5v68b/IdqGwSqODpE7zqkDJgqhZGZFBHFv0BgLdcnVD63jcEnNWHRZbDQ rRW34FKFySl4KMRBtVxbSigxWkG/AcPfjBI3RAtS6PTb6vkKj6xwt5xysMj42UtImu4D hrfrMTg/hzKTdkKq+yrtoqiQVMxdC0B2RJRHl5eNgLOejx3Z9aVSbyWPBrAGsG4kKinz BvAjqyaszxdL0nlVPwjupa6wmKezc4ErNR/bcAaQZhdsteEPH3g1aiO9+mvsyJOKXczD kumA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j+OaEZS3gTAUWW55upZOhYcgDx0ZIRi0qIunM5TKkSk=; b=n0ukXAeHm6lKSKJksW1BdxkWdV4IdC1nh3lzI9/eMimUurJJYoBjayA7biBT5woYWn i9uS+NBcrTGFi+aaWxsKl1xmn7hTNUUGkwBtmQ6iv2UIacdxylzLX0W6LqeVSiZs4IQp ZjeQM0ExkRhREWWQCj4axlllyolycPcFsGz6vLO20/TK4nU9lYx/4y5yQ2o/QqQ7T/cs n7xngTri8WcMva/c7jHvHTkfFS8ZVoC5Y96/7qDcF1H20e5caI2La4Qmppx30+B7TG0M edlfAFk6LjtghWEN7E7GLj7e65uHV6h0cEpqw+jcKt9rRBqI4NyIed4vWkLgWOFgmmNV 0IZA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2lS4reg/NBX9uafCUjSQrgmSwkvwiZ5ogXbPt0ls199pQr7MxB soopiaM5Rmwm6u3F2jHHXJQrDbybupRs+1zYQyI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLNSTO8PjDnw44ftIYRG4ccGLUg/AHTihVqp6cp4kyBE135THH+Scvsze9duAjsBbHURUdFjWFqYJvxpVsYYiA= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:42b0:: with SMTP id r45-v6mr14977453ote.44.1529519987990; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:39:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:30c3:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:39:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <152951875020.28521.17434622502794226440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <152951875020.28521.17434622502794226440.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:39:27 -0400 Message-ID: To: Spencer Dawkins Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci , pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008fa557056f171ff1" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:39:52 -0000 --0000000000008fa557056f171ff1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Spencer, Yes, that=E2=80=99s a good improvement, in fact it would be even better to = say: This problem has recently become more serious for a number of reasons. Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority Committee (RAC). Any Ethernet headers with addresses that start with either of these two values can be misidentified as IP packet headers. We plan to do an update incorporating last call and IESG comments following the telechat. Thanks, Andy On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Spencer Dawkins < spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In this text, > > This problem has recently become more serious for a number of > reasons. Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet > MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE > Registration Authority Committee (RAC). Secondly, concerns over > privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which > assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy. Random assignment > results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time > in eight. > > the problem caused by the second case is explained well, but the problem > caused > by the first reason is not. Would it be correct to say > > This problem has recently become more serious for a number of > reasons. Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment with Ethernet > MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE > Registration Authority Committee (RAC). > > Any addresses that start with either of these two values can be > misidentified. > > Secondly, concerns over > privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which > assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy. Random assignment > results in addresses starting with one of these two values one time > in eight. > > ? > > > --0000000000008fa557056f171ff1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Spencer,

Yes, that=E2=80=99s a good imp= rovement, in fact it would be even better to say:

=
=C2=A0 This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0reasons.=C2=A0 Firstly, due to the deployment of equi= pment with Ethernet
=C2=A0 =C2=A0MAC addresses that start with 0x= 4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Registration Authority= Committee (RAC). Any Ethernet headers with addresses that start with eithe= r of these two values can be misidentified as IP packet headers.

We plan to do an update incorporating last call and IE= SG comments following the telechat.

Thanks,
<= div>Andy


On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position = for
draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/<= wbr>statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/d= raft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw/



-----------------------------------------------------------------= -----
COMMENT:
-----------------------------------------------------------------= -----

In this text,

=C2=A0 This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0reasons.=C2=A0 Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment wit= h Ethernet
=C2=A0 =C2=A0MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Registration Authority Committee (RAC).=C2=A0 Secondly, concer= ns over
=C2=A0 =C2=A0privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy.=C2=A0 Random= assignment
=C2=A0 =C2=A0results in addresses starting with one of these two values one= time
=C2=A0 =C2=A0in eight.

the problem caused by the second case is explained well, but the problem ca= used
by the first reason is not. Would it be correct to say

=C2=A0 This problem has recently become more serious for a number of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0reasons.=C2=A0 Firstly, due to the deployment of equipment wit= h Ethernet
=C2=A0 =C2=A0MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6 assigned by the IEEE<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0Registration Authority Committee (RAC).

Any addresses that start with either of these two values can be misidentifi= ed.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Secondly, concerns over
=C2=A0 =C2=A0privacy have led to the use of MAC address randomization which=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0assigns local MAC addresses randomly for privacy.=C2=A0 Random= assignment
=C2=A0 =C2=A0results in addresses starting with one of these two values one= time
=C2=A0 =C2=A0in eight.

?



--0000000000008fa557056f171ff1-- From nobody Thu Jun 21 07:26:01 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DA51310B4; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Bm1Cjs+2; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=N4lT1ap0 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P4Bg4Nkx0ACb; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAC7F13109B; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F40821AF5; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:25:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=PTgF06zeHmatPUQqyIlU1FOt3XcZ4D/G823MhphdgIQ=; b=Bm1Cjs+2 e8yPT8geKyWBI9GdKb7GxriNBZQRZEqkE2hbyt954oV0fxbanL5chzBq6v2QWmbl h4OVy7IFioB4uGPIliIxbjILj5oftYE3WmUB+LlbPmOpqAg3sdfohUESOYdljBRQ gOGnmdyVKNVcj9TXzbXL03HueY35mvYTSvuCVhq/BBV+zokMnCc9nrVewsw6xxKR +yzTK5r32r5sOT6pSy5Rrbkye/zIY8NgqEc6gn1y4mWAph+jgw5UhAI2NaeXOPMh CoTYU3bCfq3gcKpCOyxIgcz179D4Ttbp+1OvEo3fveP5Z5laFEilR5GC0yC587lL YDSG8vtAXaBTSQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=PTgF06zeHmatPUQqyIlU1FOt3XcZ4 D/G823MhphdgIQ=; b=N4lT1ap0L6XN6B4EDLuLD0Ltl2+VyMJHWEt2hl1KPk6N8 b4xTwX7zLcFLOOL8G42E70D4DODdFpQGJ4JLcI0s3ADREcM1sYs8zb/OBivm7DSg M01o8utNnB+gestgVAhIlWlVicznenT2HNEdNvD/uhehiP6XcqiwLKr55Yce8Krh AOpEtJvIBVkqbvEI4sRfLuJFSyqte4LO/QwEk/Lyn/IRSx+7gT6eplv4F0n4xbCI dqG8+fmhBHmXJFW5smAARc850G0kKGECeQSOZD7L+CnPFNpbQ63C9QKZlAA6Cmpj iwr0thjkglQg6OZCBz6b6k3TAjYca15hQDUmoAZ4A== X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.75]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A0BDBE4BB5; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_07DECB6D-B765-447A-B944-C83F2034E1B3" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:25:41 -0400 Cc: Brian Carpenter , General Area Review Team , draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, "Andrew G. Malis" Message-Id: <25449863-FEAA-45CA-8609-FAE077C257CC@cooperw.in> References: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com> <22883AA3-E923-4294-95AD-9DC1C7E37391@cooperw.in> To: Stewart Bryant X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:25:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_07DECB6D-B765-447A-B944-C83F2034E1B3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thanks! > On Jun 19, 2018, at 5:35 AM, Stewart Bryant = wrote: >=20 > Hi Alissa >=20 > Yes, we will address all review comments that we receive. >=20 > - Stewart >=20 >=20 > On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; = hopefully it means Brian=E2=80=99s comments will be addressed? I have = entered a No Objection ballot. >>=20 >> Alissa >>=20 >>> On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Brian, >>>=20 >>> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. >>>=20 >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter = > = wrote: >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review result: Ready with Nits >>>=20 >>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> >. >>>=20 >>> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review Date: 2018-06-12 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 >>>=20 >>> Summary: Ready with nits >>> -------- >>>=20 >>> Comments:=20 >>> --------- >>>=20 >>> This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations = are a Bad Thing. >>>=20 >>> Nits: >>> ----- >>>=20 >>> > 1. Introduction >>> .... >>> > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire = control >>> > word in all but exceptional circumstances. >>>=20 >>> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph = of section 4). >>>=20 >>> > 3. Background >>> .... >>> > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this >>> > problem: >>> > >>> > = https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html = >>>=20 >>> No, it's no longer recent. How about: >>>=20 >>> For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this >>> problem: >>>=20 >>> > 7. Operational Considerations >>> > >>> > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may = be >>> > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled.=20 >>>=20 >>> That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: >>>=20 >>> A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on = the PW.=20 >>> The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gen-art mailing list >>> Gen-art@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art = >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_07DECB6D-B765-447A-B944-C83F2034E1B3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Thanks!

On Jun 19, 2018, at 5:35 AM, = Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:

=20 =20

Hi = Alissa

Yes, we will address all review comments that we = receive.

- Stewart



On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for = your response; hopefully it means Brian=E2=80=99s comments will be = addressed? I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

Brian,

Thanks, your comments are much = appreciated.

Cheers,
Andy


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 = PM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits
--------

Comments:
---------

This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Bad Thing.

Nits:
-----

> 1.  Introduction
....
>   This document recommends the use of = the Ethernet pseudowire control
>   word in all but exceptional = circumstances.

That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4).

> 3.  Background
....
>   A recent posting on the Nanog email = list has highlighted this
>   problem:
>
>   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

   For example, a posting on the Nanog email = list highlighted this
   problem:

> 7.  Operational Considerations
>
>   CW presence on the PW is controlled = by the configuration and may be
>   subject to default operational mode = of not being enabled.

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:
=
   A configuration switch might determine = whether the CW is used on the PW.
   The default configuration might be to = disable use of the CW.


_______________________________________________
= Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/gen-art



= --Apple-Mail=_07DECB6D-B765-447A-B944-C83F2034E1B3--