As shepherd of this document, please find below my comments.

IMO, this is a very useful proposal. The document is quite easy to understand 
with a good illustrated example.

Overall comments:
- I would encourage to have an acronym section containing all abbreviations and 
the associated expansion. That could be a good best practice.
- I'm wondering why this document intended status is Informational. It looks to 
fill a major (IMO) miss from the basic specification and I would be happy to 
see it as a standard track document. Even if there is no protocol extension 
involved, I think that standard track could make sense. Was this already 
discussed ?
- I'm not sure that we can say that this procedure is backward compatible. I 
agree that there is no protocol extension involved but as it is mentioned, we 
cannot mix PEs running the new procedure and PE running the old procedure. This 
must be ensured by the operator. Wouldn't it be better to add a flag/attribute 
to announce that a PE is capable to run this procedure ? Thus, when PEs run the 
svc carving algo, if they know that all the PEs are capable of this procedure, 
and they can all run it automatically. If there is one or more PE in the set 
that is not capable, they fallback to the regular procedure.
- I would be in favor of having of deployment considerations section that deals 
with the backward compatibility and how to deploy the solution.
- There are too much authors in the Author list. Would it be possible to reduce 
it ?

Problem statement: 
"an ES route withdrawn will make...".
[SLI] I have a doubt here, would it be "and ES route withdrawal will make" or 
"a withdrawn ES route" ?

Section 2.1
" After running the service-carving DF election algorithm"
[SLI] Could you mention that you refer to the existing algorithm from RFC7432 ?

Section 2.2/2.3:
- Would it be possible to collapse the two cases in a single procedure update ?
- I do not like to mix examples with a procedure update description. I would 
rather be in favor of focusing on what is changing compared to RFC7432. For 
instance, "The step 3 is changed as follows:". Keeping the example is really 
good, so after describing the procedure, it makes sense to run it through the 


Stephane Litkowski 


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to