Hi Susan, Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details. On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 8:17 AM Susan Hares via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Susan Hares > Review result: Not Ready > > OPS-DIR review: > > Status: Not ready - due to 6 authors. > > Summary: Excellent technical text with clear descriptions. > The sequence number mechanism is a nifty algorithm. > > Issue: 6 authors. > There are no technical issues and all operational issues have been > carefully considered. > > Technical NITS: > 1) Count to infinity > > Would an implementer or Wen Lin (a reviewer) > familiar with the RFC7432 and this code change, > check for the possibility of a "count to infinity > using this assignment of sequence numbers? > > This is a NIT because I could not think of a network > deployment and change where this might be possible, but the > authors or Wen Lin might want to consider it. > (By the way, the text is so good that I can > spot this as a potential issue). > [NM]: I did discuss this with other co-authors. We concluded that with the existing mechanism for duplicate address detection in place, this can only happen when the actual number of legitimate moves for a host exhausts the 32 bit / 4 billion sequence number space. For a host that moves every minute, this amounts to ~7K years. In other words, not likely to run into. If at all, we still decide to specify a handling for sequence number wrapping in future, we should be able to add this to 7432bis draft. > > 2. Minor editorial NITs: > > Please note that the editorial work on this text is excellent. > These NITs are very minor tweaks. > > Section 2: > text-1: @EVPN-IRB: / > * EVPN-IRB: A BGP-EVPN distributed control plane based integrated > routing and bridging fabric overlay discussed in [RFC9135]/ > > What's wrong - This sentence needs a period at the end of the sentence. > [NM]. corrected in rev19 > > text-2: @ EVPN PE: / An EVPN PE is > typically also an IP or MPLS tunnel end-point for overlay VPN flow/ > > What's wrong - This sentence needs a period at the end of the sentence. > [NM]. corrected in rev19 > > Section 6.6: @last paragraph, explicit is incorrectly spelled (explcit) > > Section 7: 1 and 2nd paragraph > > text:/ * An overlay IP subnet may still be stretched across the underlay > fabric; however, intra-subnet traffic across the stretched overlay > is never bridged./ > > This is a borderline misuse of ";" as the sentences are not really > parallel clauses. > [NM]. corrected in rev19 > > text-2: / In the absence of host MAC routes, the sequence number mobility > Extended > Community specified in [RFC7432], section 7.7, MAY be associated with > a /32 or /128 host IP prefix advertised via EVPN Route Type 5./ > > What's wrong - use of commas obscures the text. > > text-2: / In the absence of host MAC routes, the sequence number mobility > Extended > Community specified in [RFC7432] in section 7.7 MAY be associated with > a /32 or /128 host IP prefix advertised via EVPN Route Type 5. > [NM]. corrected in rev19 Thanks, Neeraj
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
