Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:30:20 -0400

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt
Reviewer: Andy Malis
Review Date: April 20, 2016
IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2016
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication, if the AD agrees (see below for details).

Comments and minor concerns:

I have no technical concerns with this draft.

I have noted the two comments in the AD review of this draft, and agree
with them.

Given the similarity in functionality to RFC 7777 and the overlap in
authorship, I expected the draft to be more or less identical to the RFC,
except for the technical differences between OSPF and ISIS. However, there
are parts of the RFC that are editorially better (easier to read or
understand) than the equivalent text in the draft, starting with the title,
Abstract, and Introduction. In particular, the Introduction in the RFC
looks like the result of cleanup by the RFC Editor, but which still needs
to be done in the draft. Why not take advantage of the work already done by
the RFC Editor? Also, the Introduction in the draft doesn't include the
usual reference to RFC 2119 terms, which is in the RFC. The Abstract in the
RFC also includes more useful detail than the Abstract in the draft.

As another example, these differences are also true in Section 4.1 of the
draft, when compared to the mostly equivalent Section 2.2.1 of the RFC. For
example, from an editorial standpoint there is a missing "The" in the first
line of the section, and there are other improvements as well. I also see
editorial corrections in Section 3 of the RFC when compared to Section 5 in
the draft.

I would recommend an editorial pass where the text is compared with the
RFC, and when obvious, editorially improved to take advantage of work
already done. This will make the RFC Editor's job easier. Alternatively,
the AD could choose to include a note to the RFC Editor, noting the
similarity and asking the RFC Editor to take advantage of the work that
they already did for the RFC. However, having this done by the document
editor would take advantage of the editor's knowledge of when differences
between the two are deliberate.

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:47:18 +0530

Hi Andy,

Thanks a lot for review. I am in agreement with all the points made 
below. So I will address them soon and upload the next version. Also the 
AD has also suggested that much of the Usecase sections is a duplicate 
of the same section in RFC 7777 and hence should be shortened to just 
list the usecases without detailing them and refering to RFC7777 instead.

I will take care both sets of comments and come up with a version early 
next week.

Thanks once again and Regards,
-Pushpasis

On 4/20/16 11:00 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this 
> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or 
> routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG 
> review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is 
> to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about 
> the Routing Directorate, please see ​ 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, 
> it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other 
> IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them 
> through discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> I have noted the two comments in the AD review of this draft, and 
> agree with them.
>
> authorship, I expected the draft to be more or less identical to the 
> RFC, except for the technical differences between OSPF and ISIS. 
> However, there are parts of the RFC that are editorially better 
> (easier to read or understand) than the equivalent text in the draft, 
> starting with the title, Abstract, and Introduction. In particular, 
> the Introduction in the RFC looks like the result of cleanup by the 
> RFC Editor, but which still needs to be done in the draft. Why not 
> take advantage of the work already done by the RFC Editor? Also, the 
> Introduction in the draft doesn't include the usual reference to RFC 
> 2119 terms, which is in the RFC. The Abstract in the RFC also includes 
> more useful detail than the Abstract in the draft.
>
> As another example, these differences are also true in Section 4.1 of 
> the draft, when compared to the mostly equivalent Section 2.2.1 of the 
> RFC. For example, from an editorial standpoint there is a missing 
> "The" in the first line of the section, and there are other 
> improvements as well. I also see editorial corrections in Section 3 of 
> the RFC when compared to Section 5 in the draft.
>
> I would recommend an editorial pass where the text is compared with 
> the RFC, and when obvious, editorially improved to take advantage of 
> work already done. This will make the RFC Editor's job easier. 
> Alternatively, the AD could choose to include a note to the RFC 
> Editor, noting the similarity and asking the RFC Editor to take 
> advantage of the work that they already did for the RFC. However, 
> having this done by the document editor would take advantage of the 
> editor's knowledge of when differences between the two are deliberate.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>

---

From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:37:49 +0530

Hi Andy,

I have uploaded version -09. Let me know if you have any other comments.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis