Dear Glenn, Thank you for your comments. I posted a new revision (-09) as follows.
URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-09.txt Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-09 Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-09 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-09 In the new revision, all of your comments are addressed and the following additional changes are made. - Update the definition and description of L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType Describe the enumerated values and the corresponding tunnel type. I added new valule, transportTunnel (8) defined in [RFC7524]. - Add some description related to transportTunnel (8) into the defi L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId - Update the description of l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags according to [RFC7902] - Added a new object, l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeAddlFlags. This is defined in [RFC7902] I also removed some paragraph from 1.1 Terminology section, because those seem verbose. Please see some other notes below. 2017-06-05 12:24 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>: > 1. The explanations for the size of the identifiers for each tunneling > technology in TC L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelId > is nicely done. These are aligned with definitions in rfc6514. > In > noTunnelId (0), -- No tunnel information > is there a specific reason to name it 'noTunnelId' instead of > 'noTunnelInfo'. Fixed. > 2. The TCs > L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType, and > L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer > Are probably not required. The value of the RowPointer [rfc2579] > object is ' the name of the instance of the first > accessible columnar object in the conceptual row' > So the pointer will explicitly contain the name of the table. > An auxilliary type object to indicate the table name is not > necessary. > [This is an oversight on my part. I should have noticed this earlier.] These TCs were removed and related descriptions in other parts in the document were updated. > Other Editorials: > P-2. Sec-1. > 1. para-1 makes tedious reading. Could this be improved? > > 2. "Border Gateway Protocol/ MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS)" > The usage of the '/' here is unclear. Updated. In the new revision, BGP/MPLS VPN is explained in para-1, and multicast support in BGP/MPLS Layer 2 and Layer 3 is explained in para-2 separately. > 3. "and L3 VPNs. Therefore, TCs and MOs defined" > The context of the 'Therefore' is not clear. Fixed. I removed the related sentence because it seemed not required already. > 4. "The are two type" > Probably s/The/There/ ? Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. -- tsuno _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
