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

Thanks Lou. Your suggested change below is clearer thanks.

Jim

From: Lou Berger <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, July 12, 2024 at 10:37 AM
To: James Guichard <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification

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  == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of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  == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of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



77    1.  Introduction



79      The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].

80      It provides the exchange of link related control information between



Jim> Perhaps replace ‘It’ with ‘This protocol..’



sure. Will do this in all drafts.



84      that can be reused in DLEP messaging.  The base DLEP specification

85      does 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.



86      document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow

87      identification 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.






95      specified 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]