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

Thanks!

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 5:35 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa
> 
> Yes, we will address all review comments that we receive.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
>> 
>

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