Hi Jeffery, Some responses inline...
> > > > > 3. From the title, the document is to define mibs for L2 and L3 > > Multicast VPNs, it's better to define and scope what are L2 multicast > > VPN and L3 multicast VPN. > > And the draft uses "Multicast in VPN" to identify MVPN, it seems not > > accurate. It's better to use the consistent definition and description > > for MVPN through the whole document IMHO. > > Zzh> The Introduction section makes it clear that the scope is for VPLS and > (IP) > VPN Multicast. As I just alluded to in the previous sentence, I'll use "IP > VPN" for > L3 case. Is that ok? According to RFC6513, Multicast in BGP/MPLS in IP VPN is called MVPN, you may take a look at RFC6513 and try to align the terms with it. > > > > > 4. Section 4, > > The LAST-UPDATED, ORGANIZATION, CONTACT-INFO and the Revision history > > should be updated to reflect the latest status. > > Zzh> I had expected to update this at the final step of publication. Will > follow > appropriate advice. > > > > > 5. Page 5, > > > > This document defines the following flags: > > > > + Leaf Information Required (L)" > > > > s/+ Leaf Information Required (L)"/ Leaf Information Required (L)" > > Zzh> The text is quoting RFC 6514, " 5. PMSI Tunnel Attribute". Having said > that, I'll just remove the quote and simply say it's the flag field in the > PMSI > Tunnel Attribute, because other flags could be defined in other > specifications. OK. > > > > 6. > > Section 5. Security Considerations > > "N/A" > > > > The same issue as the MVPN mib, please enhance it. > > Zzh> Will research. Sure, please. > > > > > 7. Please make sure that the MIB Modules are compiled cleanly. > > Zzh> Please let me know if you've noticed any issue. No. Once the document updated, we can start the MIB doctor review. Best regards, Mach > > Thanks! > Jeffrey > > > > > Best regards, > > Mach _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
