Thanks for the review, Dan! Jari
On 13 Oct 2014, at 06:58, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. > > Document: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations-03.txt > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 9/18/14 > IETF LC End Date: 9/22/14 > IESG Telechat date: 10/16/14 > > Summary: > > This document was not updated since my initial review, so my comments still > stand. > > A useful and very well written document, with a few minor issues that need > clarification and fixes before publication > > Major issues: > > None > > Minor issues: > > 1. The reference [RS-ARCH] mentioned in 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 is not > reachable (Error 404). As the understanding of the issues described in the > two sections depend on this reference, a valid reference is required. > 2. Section 4.2.1.3 uses the term ‘flat layer 2 network’ which has at > least two meanings depending on the context or layer – either one VLAN space > at the link layer (as to differentiate from Customer VLAN and Provider VLAN) > or a bridged network with no routers between the bridged segments. > Clarification is needed. > 3. The usage of keywords is inconsistent in a few place. In 4.6.1 the > ‘should’ in the second paragraph needs to be capitalized. In 4.6.3 we have a > capitalized SHOULD, but then a non-capitalized ‘may’ for statements that both > seem to describe requirements of the same level. > 4. I am doubt that Section 4.7 is that useful. On one hand reliability > of layer 2 forwarding is not in my opinion such a big issue, and measures can > be taken a the link layer to improve it (use lags or redundant paths). Second > the recommended mitigation (RFC 5881 BFD) is described as non-optimal, with > no other alternative. I would just drop this section completely. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. The English syntax of the second paragraph in the Abstract is broken. > 2. In the introduction there is a mention of ‘using shared Layer-2 > networking media such as Ethernet’. Actually Ethernet is seldom used nowadays > as a shared media, I would just recommend saying ‘using data link layers > protocols such as Ethernet’ > 3. In section 4.2 s/optimization technique is implemented/optimization > technique that is implemented/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
