Hi authors,
I read this version and have some comments.
Thanks,
Sandy
==================================
1. In section 6.1, since the example is about AS, if it is better to change the
title of this section to "AS/Area va. Region" ?
2. In section 6.2, the last sentence of the fourth paragrah, if it should be
"there is no per-region S-PMSI aggregation routes"?
3. In section 6.2, if it is better to add some detail description for area ID
EC construction?
4. In section 6.3, if it is better to add some detail description for Route
Target construction?
5. The following is the idnits result:
idnits 2.16.02
/tmp/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** There are 16 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
one being 3 characters in excess of 72.
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The document date (June 17, 2019) is 22 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Missing Reference: 'RFC 7524' is mentioned on line 196, but not defined
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 763, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7432' is defined on line 773, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7524' is defined on line 778, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC7988' is defined on line 784, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bier-architecture' is defined on line 791,
but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bier-evpn' is defined on line 797, but no
explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6513' is defined on line 802, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC6514' is defined on line 806, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework has been
published as RFC 8584
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track has been published
as RFC 8534
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-architecture has been published as
RFC 8279
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above._______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
