Hi Sandy, Thanks for your review and comments. I have submitted -07 revision.
Please see zzh> below. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 9:43 PM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; Wen Lin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [bess] comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06 Hi authors, I read this version and have some comments. Thanks, Sandy ================================== 1. In section 6.1, since the example is about AS, if it is better to change the title of this section to "AS/Area va. Region" ? Zzh> Changed. 1. In section 6.2, the last sentence of the fourth paragrah, if it should be "there is no per-region S-PMSI aggregation routes"? Zzh> "Per-region" itself already means aggregation. 1. In section 6.2, if it is better to add some detail description for area ID EC construction? Zzh> Added. 1. In section 6.3, if it is better to add some detail description for Route Target construction? Zzh> Added. 5. The following is the idnits result: Zzh> Addressed. Zzh> Thanks! Zzh> Jeffrey idnits 2.16.02 /tmp/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 16 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (June 17, 2019) is 22 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7524' is mentioned on line 196, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 763, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7432' is defined on line 773, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7524' is defined on line 778, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7988' is defined on line 784, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bier-architecture' is defined on line 791, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bier-evpn' is defined on line 797, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6513' is defined on line 802, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6514' is defined on line 806, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework has been published as RFC 8584 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track has been published as RFC 8534 == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-architecture has been published as RFC 8279 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
