Hi Matthew, Thank you very much for reviewing the document. Version 05 has been posted addressing all your comments. Please see more in-line below.
Thank you. Jorge From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 3:43 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Document shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-04 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 3:43 AM Authors and WG I am the document shepherd for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-04. I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready to progress, subject to fixing the following minor comments. Please treat these as you would WG last call comments. I also wanted to draw the WG’s attention to the fact that we did not receive a statement during WG last call from Contributor Mudassir Tufail. We intend to proceed with publication since he did respond to an earlier IPR poll on the draft. - Please expand all acronyms on first use. [JORGE] done, thx - The ‘terminology’ and ‘conventions used in this document’ are at the end of the document. Please can you move them to the beginning. [JORGE] done, thx - Section 2: Solution requirements. I think these are the design requirements for the solution proposed in this draft and which it is claimed to meet, rather than requirements for some future as yet un-published solution. Maybe you can rephrase the first sentence to: “The IR optimization solution specified in this document (referred to as optimized-IR hereafter) meets the following requirements:”. If there are some from this list that it does not meet, then you should call them out. [JORGE] changed - Section 3: The first paragraph says that you are changing the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag routes and attributes. Are you really changing them or extending them? If you are changing them then I think this document updates RFC7432, otherwise it is probably better to change the wording to ‘extends’. [JORGE] you’re right, “extends” is the right word - Section 3: Flags field diagram. ‘reserved’ is usually shortened to ‘rsvd’ rather than ‘resved’ in RFCs. [JORGE] done, thx - There are a couple of cases where you say ‘the solution proposes’ (Section 3 and 4.4). This is no longer a proposal, but rather an accepted solution. I suggest you remove the word ‘proposes’ and rephrase those sentences accordingly. [JORGE] done, thx Thanks Matthew
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
