[manet] Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-clas sification

Thanks for the comments -- see in line responses below.

On 7/11/2024 8:49 AM, James Guichard wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> Please find the following comments from my review of 
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. In summary I did not 
> find too much to comment on and the document is clearly written. Thank 
> you. Note that my comments contain line numbers from nits to help 
> locate where in the document the comment applies:
>
> == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
>
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-12
>
> == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of
>
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-14
>
will do.  Will also fix the same issue in 
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control
>
> - Same author issue as previous documents please correct - s/Stan 
> Ratliff/D Wiggins
>
> 771.Introduction
>
> 79The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
>
> 80It provides the exchange of link related control information between
>
> Jim> Perhaps replace ‘It’ with ‘This protocol..’
>
sure. Will do this in all drafts.


> 84that can be reused in DLEP messaging.The base DLEP specification
>
> 85does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP endpoints.This
>
> Jim> By using the term ‘base’ above it may not be clear that you are 
> referring to the same specification as detailed in RFC8175. Either 
> remove the term or add the reference to RFC8175.
>
sure. Will do this in all drafts.


> 86document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow
>
> 87identification on a more granular basis.Specifically it enables a
>
> Jim> The above is confusing. You state earlier that ‘DLEP 
> specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP 
> endpoints’ but then above you say ‘which provide flow identification 
> on a more granular basis’ which implies that there is already flow 
> identification in the protocol but this document makes it more 
> granular. Please clarify.
>
Jim, how about this (as updated by the above)

OLD

    The DLEP specification does not include any flow
    identification beyond DLEP endpoints.

NEW

    The DLEP specification does not include any flow
    identification beyond DLEP endpoints, i.e, flows
    are identified based on their DLEP endpoint.



> 95specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
>
> Jim> missing ‘.’ at end of sentence above.
>
Done!

>
> Thanks!
>
Thank you for the comments -- I've pushed changes to the repo, see

https://github.com/louberger/dlep-extensions/commit/cd7f7d7dc7849ad66836f65ae40e07bfdf20a3ff

It also includes the previous missed change to David's email in 
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification

Please shout if you'd like to see any other changes.  I can upload all 
four docs once the upload gate lifts.

Lou

> Jim
>

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]