Hello Bert,
Hi, I was asked OPS-DIR review for draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-06.txt.
Great !
At http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-simple-va/?include_text=1 I found revision 08, which is the one I reviewed yesterday. Then today I found draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-09.txt, so quickly skimmed through that as well. It fixed/removed the usage of example IP addresses that were not allowed according to RFC3330. Also, Acronyms have been expanded. So rev 9 is better than rev 8.
Yes I have just posted ver -09 to incorporate latest comments from few GROW reviewers.
It seems to me that all the operational (deployment) aspects are described in this document. At least all the ones I could see. The document does not mention any "network management" specifics. I guess that means there are no simple-va specific management
True. The implementation we have tested in the field from one major router vendor was fully automated.
I am somewhat wondering if RFC2119 language is needed. I find one case where MUST is used (top para on page 7). I wonder if you indeed want to use MUST, if the following "should" and "may" in that case better be SHOULD and MAY. But all in all, I would think that for informational all lowercase must/should/may would be fine. I am not hung up on it though.
I am happy to adjust the above accordingly (or remove ref to 2119) if you seem fit. Please advise on or off line and I will change it. Or we could always let RFC editor do those edits :)
Best regards and thank you very much for the review, R.
Bert Wijnen p.s. I am NOT on the grow mailing list.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
