Subject: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:24:14 -0500

Oops - forgot to cc gen-art.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM
Subject: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
To: [email-masked]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
Review Date:  4 June 2012
IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2012
IESG Telechat Date: 07 June 2012

Summary:  Ready with minor nits

Editorial nits:

1) Section 1:
-  2nd para, last sentence:
This sentence doesn't quite parse - it's not normative, so it should either
be deleted or reworded.  I suggest deleting as I think it's somewhat
superfluous.

- Next to last paragraph - last three sentences - a little verbose &
somewhat redundant.  I think it can be summarized something like the
following:
OLD:
   This document specifies a "built-in dynamic GTSM
   capability negotiation" for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM.  GTSM
   will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an
   LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and
   agree to use it.  That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its
   negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default without any
   configuration.
NEW:
   This document specifies a dynamic GTSM
   capability negotiation mechanism for LDP. This mechanism allows
   both peers on an LDP session to indicate the support and use of GTSM
   without requiring any configuration.

2) Section 2.2, 1st para, last sentence: "and RECOMMENDED" -> "and are
RECOMMENDED"

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:28:02 -0500

And, the response didn't make it either, of course.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
To: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Cc: "<[email-masked]>" <
[email-masked]>

Mary,

Many thanks for the review! Much appreciated -- please see inline:

On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

Editorial nits:

1) Section 1:

Agreed E_PARSE. I recommend we do not delete because it introduces the
concept that this is for Basic Discovery. However, suggest:

   Therefore, GTSM can fully benefit LDP protocol peering session
   established using Basic Discovery.

to:

   Therefore, GTSM can protect an LDP protocol peering session
   established using Basic Discovery.

Thank you.

This one I prefer to leave as-is, although appears as redundant in the
surface, it is agreed and crafted with some precision.

Done. Thanks again.

Adrian, I have these editorials in the working copy committed. I can submit
a new rev at your request.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.