Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12.txt

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:14:06 +0200

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-manet-olsrv2-multipath-12.txt
Reviewer: Loa Andersson
Review Date: 2017-05-11
IETF LC End Date: 2015-05-11 (?)
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

The draft is well written and readable also for someone that does
not read manet-draft that often.

Major Issues:
"No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

"No minor issues found."

Nits:

I've looked at the the GenArt review by Peter Yee and the Intdir
review by Zhen Cao and largely agree with their comments.

In addition: The nits tool picks on something that looks like
references on line 469 ( [1] and [2] ) but is not. Don't think you'll
need to fix that, the RFC Editor will fix if necessary.

I'd like to have the Abstract fleshed out a bit, some more context
given. If you are new to the area and the draft it is very hard to
find the expected useful info in the abstract.

You use "TC message" already in section 4, but TC (Traffic Control)
is not expanded until section 6, should be done the first time it is
used.

The abbreviation "SR" is used (often as part of parameter names), but
never really expanded, though one can find the expansion kind of
explained at some places. Could be made clearer.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Jiazi Yi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 16:10:23 +0200

Hi Loa, 

Thanks a lot for the review. 

I don’t know why the nits tool says

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 469

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 469

because there is no ‘1’/‘2’ on line 469 of the draft. May be the RFC editor could tell us what’s the problem. 

And we will fix the rest of the issues that you raised in the next revision. 

best

Jiazi

> On 11 May 2017, at 10:14, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> 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.
> 
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:46:06 +0200

Jiazi

Inline please

>   -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 469

line 469 is (i've marked the '1' and '2'

469	   (PT_metric, PT_address[1], PT_address[2], ..., PT_address[n])
                                  ~~~            ~~~

My question is really not to the authors, I think your text is fine.
RFC Editor might escape the '[' and ']', but I don't really understand
why the nits tool does not have a warning for the '[n]' on the same
line. I will bring this up witht he tools people.

/Loa

>> On 11 May 2017, at 10:14, Loa Andersson <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>> 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.
>>
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

--