Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

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 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <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 <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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
Pals mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals