Hi Francesca,

Thank you very much for your review.
Please see in-line how we are resolving your comments in the next revision (07, 
to be published asap).

Thanks.
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Francesca Palombini 
<francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com>
Date: Friday, December 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM
To: "gen-...@ietf.org" <gen-...@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework....@ietf.org" 
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework....@ietf.org>, "i...@ietf.org" 
<i...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] Genart last call review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06

    Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
    Review result: Ready with Nits
    
    I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
    Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
    by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
    like any other last call comments.
    
    For more information, please see the FAQ at
    
    <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
    
    Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06
    Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
    Review Date: 2018-12-14
    IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
    IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
    
    Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
    should be fixed before publication.
    
    Major issues: N/A
    
    Minor issues:
    
    I agree with the reviewers comments saying that this document should update
    RFC7432 and RFC8124. In particular, quoting RFC2232
    (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2223#section-12):
    
       [...] A document that
       merely updates an earlier document cannot stand on its own; it is
       something that must be added to or inserted into the previously
       existing document, and has limited usefulness independently.  The
       terms Supercedes and Replaces are no longer used.
    
       Updates
    
          To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
          alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
          to the previous document.  The newer publication is a part that
          will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
          addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
          the original document.
    
    (Yes, RFC2232 is obsolete, but I could not find the same text in the more
    recent RFC7322)

[JORGE] I think this document "can stand on its own" and it is "useful 
independently" of RFC7432, although the latter document is a normative 
reference of course. Please see the resolution to Adrian's comment: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bess/current/msg03760.html 
Martin, please let us know if you are not okay with our resolution.

    
    Nits/editorial comments:
    
      "but they do not require
       any changes to the EVPN Route exchange and have minimal changes to
       their content per se."
    
    * what does their refer to?
[JORGE] changed to the following for clarity:
"These mechanisms do involve changes to the Default DF Election algorithm, but 
they do not require any changes to the EVPN Route exchange and have minimal 
changes in the EVPN routes."
    
    * Section 2.2.2: expand MAC-VRF on first usage for readability (or add a
    reference to its definition)
[JORGE] added to the terminology section.
    
    * Figure 3: add a definition for ANY STATE (the figure is clear, but for
    consistency I would add that in the text as well)
[JORGE] Added:
"5.  ANY_STATE: Refers to any of the above states."
    
    * Figure 3: add "or" between VLAN_CHANGE, RCVD_ES, LOST_ES (again, not
    necessary, suggested for readability of the figure)
[JORGE] done, thx
    
    * Section 3.1: the term "re-entering" needs clarifying: I would consider a 
loop
    as re-entering the state, but from bullet 8. it seems like you don't.
[JORGE] good point. Changed 8 to:
"8.  DF_CALC on VLAN_CHANGE, RCVD_ES or LOST_ES: do *****as in transition 
7.******"
    
    * suggestion for figure 4 (otherwise it looks like there are 2 fields 
Bitmap of
    1B each):
    
          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Type=0x06     | Sub-Type(0x06)| RSV |  DF Alg |    Bitmap     ~
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         ~               |            Reserved                           |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[JORGE] done, thanks.

    
    * Section 3.2: why was Bit 0 left unassigned in Bitmap?
[JORGE] there are implementations of 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-02 using that bit.
    
    * IANA considerations: I think you want to specify that the policy for Alg 
31
    is Experimental use (right now the text describing the policy only says "RFC
    required", with no distinction for different values).
[JORGE] ok, done.
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    BESS@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
    

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to