Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] Proofread RFC3315bis after #142

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:23:43 +0000

Marcin:

Attached are comments through section 17.2.5. I’ll hopefully finish the
few pages remaining tomorrow and update with the additional comments (if
any). You can certainly wait until I send the full review, but I figured I
might as well get these out in case you have some cycles to work on it. We
didn’t really discuss how best to handle any edits (i.e., whether you
expected us to perhaps edit the document directly).

I used Mac Word to edit the text file, so there may be a few odd
characters in the file (as I think quotes and a few other items may not
have come through correctly). But, hopefully that won’t be an issue.

I mostly reviewed by reading the material and checking things as needed in
the original 3315/3633 (or our 04 draft). I did find a few other issues
while doing this (cleaned up some text in the xml in section 13 and also
reopened ticket #86 as there is some more cleanup to do in removing the
delayed authentication).

I also added a few comments related to ticket #61 (T1/T2 for stateful
issues) as you seemed to have taken some of the steps to address that
ticket but not all.

Thanks much for doing this.

- Bernie

On 3/17/16, 9:55 AM, "Dhcpv6bis on behalf of Marcin Siodelski"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I finally managed to combine sections 17, 18, 19 of the original
>RFC3315, into a single section, now called "DHCP Configuration
>Exchanges" with subsections: "Client Behavior" and "Server Behavior". It
>turned out to be tedious and definitely not a 'copy-paste' type of work.
>Because of that, I am asking if someone could proofread the new text
>which is available on the 'ticket142_rebase' branch of our git repository:
>
>$ git checkout ticket142_rebase
>
>For your convenience I also attached the txt version of the updated
>document.
>
>I am not sure what we can do before the submission cutoff. Basically, we
>can just defer the merge of my changes until it has sufficient number of
>proofreads, which likely means that we will not include it in the
>version we publish for IETF Buenos Aires. Or, we can merge it as is, and
>fix issues (hopefully minor) later. The latter has the advantage of
>minimizing the risk of merge conflicts because the changes I made are
>quite heavy. It also has obvious disadvantages...
>
>Thanks,
>Marcin

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:21:40 +0200

Bernie,

Thanks for your careful read and review. I started addressing the
comments and pushed the changes made so far into the 'ticket142_rebase'
branch. I'll further work on this some time this week. If I fail to
address all issues by the end of this week, it will have to wait for
another two weeks to get done, because we travel for the All Company
meeting next week. But, we'll see how much I can do before then.

Marcin

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:00:52 +0000

Hi Marcin:

Here’s the complete review, including the last few sections which didn’t
have anything significant (minor nits).

You might see 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-dhc-5.pdf as we had a
plan … though we didn’t have any input from you so we may have to alter.
We should have factored in your travel since I should have known it would
happen (as Tomek mentioned he was going to San Francisco area).

Do what you can over the next few days and I think it best to just MERGE
your branch into main if you can by the end of the week - at least then
other edits will be easier and also easier for others to make some small
changes that they made find.

Also, let me know where you left off and I can always work on the
remainder of my comments.

Thanks much!!

- Bernie

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:51:25 +0200

ok, I'll let you know where I stand with this by the end of the week.

Marcin

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:28:54 +0200

Bernie et al.

Thanks again for the review. I made a couple more edits today, but a
couple still need to be addressed. The branch ticket142_rebase is now
merged to master and pushed as Bernie suggested.

To make it easier to collaborate on this, I have created a google sheet
which lists all issues and the status of their resolution:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CYY_aAda4F0T1hHf6dMWfGcaQjWPIfUk3_1Cm18XoVA/edit?usp=sharing

Anyone with the link should be able to edit the document.

In general, I think some of the leftovers should rather be addressed in
separate tickets as they do not belong to what #142 is about. Some can
be addressed within #142, but I won't have more time today to work on
this, and I travel next week.

I realize that the deadline for #142 was by this Friday, but because of
my absence on IETF, I missed a chance to raise my hand against this hard
deadline. Plus, it is hard to tell how much time it will take you to
address review comments until review comments are sent.

Having said that, I can work on this more when I get back from travel
the week after upcoming week. If anyone has idle cycles sooner, you're
welcome to help resolving the remaining issues.

Marcin

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 12:39:26 +0000

Thanks Marcin for expediting this and merging the text.

Have a good trip to SF area.

- Bernie

On 4/15/16, 8:28 AM, "Marcin Siodelski" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> might as well get these out in case you have some cycles to work on
>>>>it.
>>>> We
>>>> I mostly reviewed by reading the material and checking things as
>>>>needed
>>>> in

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 19:49:10 +0000

Hi Marcin:

I updated the Google sheet with my comments and also created 3 new tickets for some of the issues.

#157	Client cannot generally just 'retransmit' requests
#158	Inconsistent UseMulticast checks?
#159	Add "Client adds Elapsed Time Option" into packets

I did NOT make changes to the rfc3315bis.xml file.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcin Siodelski [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:29 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] Proofread RFC3315bis after #142

Bernie et al.

Thanks again for the review. I made a couple more edits today, but a couple still need to be addressed. The branch ticket142_rebase is now merged to master and pushed as Bernie suggested.

To make it easier to collaborate on this, I have created a google sheet which lists all issues and the status of their resolution:

In general, I think some of the leftovers should rather be addressed in separate tickets as they do not belong to what #142 is about. Some can be addressed within #142, but I won't have more time today to work on this, and I travel next week.

I realize that the deadline for #142 was by this Friday, but because of my absence on IETF, I missed a chance to raise my hand against this hard deadline. Plus, it is hard to tell how much time it will take you to address review comments until review comments are sent.

Having said that, I can work on this more when I get back from travel the week after upcoming week. If anyone has idle cycles sooner, you're welcome to help resolving the remaining issues.

Marcin

On 12.04.2016 04:00, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Hi Marcin:
> 
> Here’s the complete review, including the last few sections which 
> didn’t have anything significant (minor nits).
> 
> You might see
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-dhc-5.pdf as we 
> had a plan … though we didn’t have any input from you so we may have to alter.
> We should have factored in your travel since I should have known it 
> would happen (as Tomek mentioned he was going to San Francisco area).
> 
> Do what you can over the next few days and I think it best to just 
> MERGE your branch into main if you can by the end of the week - at 
> least then other edits will be easier and also easier for others to 
> make some small changes that they made find.
> 
>>> Attached are comments through section 17.2.5. I’ll hopefully finish 
>>> the few pages remaining tomorrow and update with the additional 
>>> comments (if any). You can certainly wait until I send the full 
>>> review, but I figured I might as well get these out in case you have 
>>> some cycles to work on it.
>>> We
>>> didn’t really discuss how best to handle any edits (i.e., whether 
>>> you expected us to perhaps edit the document directly).
>>>
>>> characters in the file (as I think quotes and a few other items may 
>>> not have come through correctly). But, hopefully that won’t be an issue.
>>>
>>> needed in the original 3315/3633 (or our 04 draft). I did find a few 
>>> other issues while doing this (cleaned up some text in the xml in 
>>> section 13 and also reopened ticket #86 as there is some more 
>>> cleanup to do in removing the delayed authentication).
>>>
>>> issues) as you seemed to have taken some of the steps to address 
>>> that ticket but not all.
>>>
>>>> Because of that, I am asking if someone could proofread the new 
>>>> text which is available on the 'ticket142_rebase' branch of our git
>>>> repository:
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure what we can do before the submission cutoff. 
>>>> Basically, we can just defer the merge of my changes until it has 
>>>> sufficient number of proofreads, which likely means that we will 
>>>> not include it in the version we publish for IETF Buenos Aires. Or, 
>>>> we can merge it as is, and fix issues (hopefully minor) later. The 
>>>> latter has the advantage of minimizing the risk of merge conflicts 
>>>> because the changes I made are quite heavy. It also has obvious 
>>>> disadvantages...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Marcin
>>>
>

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:55:20 -0700

Thanks Bernie! I am about to finish my trip to SF. Next week I can
devote some time to make updates to the doc if nobody gets round to the
remaining issues, not covered by the new tickets.

Marcin

On 21.04.2016 12:49, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> To make it easier to collaborate on this, I have created a google
> sheet which lists all issues and the status of their resolution:
>
> In general, I think some of the leftovers should rather be addressed
> in separate tickets as they do not belong to what #142 is about. Some
> can be addressed within #142, but I won't have more time today to work
> on this, and I travel next week.
>
> I realize that the deadline for #142 was by this Friday, but because
> of my absence on IETF, I missed a chance to raise my hand against this
> hard deadline. Plus, it is hard to tell how much time it will take you
> to address review comments until review comments are sent.
>