Subject: [bess] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 04:32:03 -0800

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gen-ART review pointed out that the draft was difficult to read. 

For what it is worth, I found the draft relatively hard to read and I
knew much of the terminology already. But I was able to understand what
the draft specified. But I think it would be useful make some additional
edits along the lines of Adrian’s suggestions or perhaps beyond. One
thing that I often find useful is to explain the semantics of a concept
or field as early as possible. There were a few cases in this document
where you talked about something for a while but it was only clear later
what its meaning was. Example: there’s a lot of rules about the minlen
field early in the draft, but it is only on page six that the spec
actually says what it does. Explaining what it is for would have made
understanding easier.

In any case, these are just comments from my perspective. This is a
No-Obj position.