On 12/22/2015 12:51 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
Eric:
Thank you for revisions in version -05 of your document.
Unfortunately it does not resolve either of the two points I raised.
1)*On the BGP Extended Communities*, I feel your specification is
*unclear and warrants change on the DISCUSS* Criteria due to
interoperability issues.
I've explained why I don't think this is correct. In particular, I
don't think it is wise to mention the value of the "Transitive Opaque
Extended Community Type" codepoint, as this can be found in the IANA
registry for Transitive Extended Community types, and implementers
should really be encouraged to consult the registries for the codepoints.
I’ve given you 2 small sections to add to your document at the
beginning of section 4.4. to resolve this DISCUSS point.
Note that the codepoint you mention for Transitive Opaque Extended
Community Type is not correct. Unnecessary last minute changes do tend
to introduce errors.
You need to just fill in one part below on RR restrictions for
*Extranet Separation Extended community*.
I will add some text saying that RRs must not add or remove this EC.
2) *On the deployment section:* I given text and examples – but I
think you still misunderstand what I am looking for.
Perhaps.
Since you are an author of academic papers,
I am not.
consider I am looking for an operator-based “abstract” that focuses
the reader on the key points.I am sure you can create one for this
document, but I not clear why you object to it the concept.
It seems to me that you are asking for something that could be titled
"An Operator's Guide to Provisioning Extranet MVPN". While that might
be useful, it is not within the scope of the current document. As I've
said, I am not aware of any IETF requirement that requires such a thing
to be included.
will you please let me know that you have read my suggested text
insertions on both these topics.
I have.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
