Subject: [sfc] Ignored comments regarding draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:23:39 -0400

Paul,

I made several comments on the list regarding draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07 that
were neither responded to nor fixed in draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-08.

1. I noticed an editing error, at the bottom of p. 12 it still discusses
three reserved bits in fig. 6, but now there’s only one bit.

[Note that this comment now pertains to p.13 of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-08.]

2. In draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07, draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01 is referenced
three times, but is not in the list of references.

Also, section 6 of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07 specifically references section 6
of draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01. I suspect that section 9 is what was
actually intended. In any case, section 6 is obviously incorrect.

[These comments still pertain to draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-08.]

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:34:21 +0000

Thank you for your careful review.  My sincere apologies, this is my fault, and likely due to some local version tracking.  -09, to be posted shortly, will address these.

Paul

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> I made several comments on the list regarding draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07 that were neither responded to nor fixed in draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-08.
> 
> 1. I noticed an editing error, at the bottom of p. 12 it still discusses three reserved bits in fig. 6, but now there’s only one bit.
> 
> 2. In draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07, draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01 is referenced three times, but is not in the list of references. 
> 
> Also, section 6 of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07 specifically references section 6 of draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01. I suspect that section 9 is what was actually intended. In any case, section 6 is obviously incorrect.
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:58:32 -0400

Paul,

I’m just looking at -09. Thanks for incorporating my comments, however on
p. 13 you fixed the the reserved bit in the first instance but left “bits”
on the next line:

   Reserved bit: one reserved bit is present for future use.  The
   reserved bits MUST be set to 0x0.

You can mark removing the extra “s” for your next update.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thank you for your careful review.  My sincere apologies, this is my
> fault, and likely due to some local version tracking.  -09, to be posted
> shortly, will address these.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> > Also, section 6 of draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-07 specifically references section
> 6 of draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-01. I suspect that section 9 is what was