Pete, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot on the BCP/proposed standard question and flagged the rest of your comments as needing to be addressed.
Alissa > On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Pete Resnick <resn...@episteme.net> wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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-vpls-seamless-integ-0 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2018-12-19 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready with some nits, but one process issue/query. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > This document is intended for Proposed Standard. It doesn't have protocol as > much as operational configuration information for integration. RFC 2026 > section > 5 says: > > The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to > standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. > [...] > Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with > the technical specifications for hardware and software required for > computer communication across interconnected networks. However, > since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great > variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user > service requires that the operators and administrators of the > Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations. > > That sounds like what this document is doing. It also sounds like this > document > is unlike to advance to Internet Standard, as there's not the kind of > iterative > implementation that protocols go through. It's not a big deal either way, but > this does seem better suited to a BCP. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Abstract: s/draft/document/g > > Introduction: "Many Service Providers (SPs) who...". You don't use "SP" > anywhere else in the document, and other places where you use the phrase it > isn't capitalized. Suggest just saying "Many service providers who..." > > §1, Definitions: > > (PBB-)VPLS: refers to both, PBB-VPLS and VPLS. As for EVPN, this > abbreviation is used when the text applies to both technologies. > > It says EVPN in the second sentence. I don't understand. Did you mean VPLS? > > §2: The 4 "MUST"s and 1 "MAY" aren't requirements on the implementation; > they're the requirements this document will satisfy. Seems like they shouldn't > be capitalized. > > §3.2, second bullet, 3.4.1, last paragraph, §4.2, second bullet, and §4.4.1, > last paragraph: Why are the "must"s not capitalized? > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
