Hi Albaro, Agreed with all comments, and we can change the “is requesting the ability” to “announce the ability”.
Do we need to submit a new draft with the changes? Thanks, Sami From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:54 PM To: "draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-...@ietf.org>> Cc: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "bess-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>" <bess-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigour...@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>> Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03 Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>> Resent-To: <ke...@arrcus.com<mailto:ke...@arrcus.com>>, Sami Boutros <sbout...@vmware.com<mailto:sbout...@vmware.com>>, <jli...@cisco.com<mailto:jli...@cisco.com>>, <bin_...@cable.comcast.com<mailto:bin_...@cable.comcast.com>>, <jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> Resent-Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:54 PM Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Thank you for a well written and straight forward document!! I have some comments (see below) that I think are easy to address. I am then starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. Major: M1. All the rfc2119 keywords in this text should not be capitalized because they are part of an example: For example, a PE part of a VPLS and with a local T = 1, MUST only transmit traffic with a flow label to those peers that signaled R = 1. And if the same PE has local R = 1, it MUST only expect to receive traffic with a flow label from peers with T = 1. Any other traffic MUST NOT have a flow label. M2. Security Considerations: I agree that there are no new issues. However, please also point to rfc4761 and any other document that defines the base functionality being modified here. Minor: P1. "This draft introduces an OPTIONAL mode of operation..." There's no need for "OPTIONAL" to be Normative in this sentence since it is just describing what it is, not specifying behavior. s/OPTIONAL/optional P2. The new registry has a policy of "IETF Review", which basically means that any RFC (not just Standards Track RFCs) can use the bits in the registry. I ask because there are only 4 bits left. Note that I'm not asking you to necessarily change the policy...just pointing it out. P3. "T When the bit value is 1, the PE is requesting the ability..." Did you mean "announce the ability" instead? P4. s/NUST NOT/MUST NOT P5. References: I think these can be Informative: rfc4385, rfc8077, rfc4928
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
