Hi Chongfeng, Jia, I believe that version -06 had the changes to align with the TEAS terminology - correct? This review is closed.
Thanks, Acee > On Dec 14, 2023, at 2:29 AM, Hejia (Jia) <hejia=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > Hi Chongfeng, > Thanks for your reply. Your reply looks reasonable. > B.R. > Jia > 发件人: Chongfeng Xie [mailto:chongfeng....@foxmail.com] > 发送时间: 2023年12月12日 13:14 > 收件人: Hejia (Jia) <he...@huawei.com>; rtg-...@ietf.org > 抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all > <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt....@ietf.org>; last-call <last-c...@ietf.org>; > lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > 主题: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Hi Jia, > Thanks for the review comments. > I see your major comment is about the terminology alignment, as replied to > Daniele, we will follow the decision in TEAS to update the terminologies in > next revision. > Please see some replies to the minor issues inline: > From: He Jia via Datatracker > Date: 2023-12-11 16:09 > To: rtg-...@ietf.org > CC: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all; last-call; lsr > Subject: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Reviewer: He Jia > Review result: Not Ready > Hello, > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing > ADs. > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would > be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by > updating the draft. > Document: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Reviewer: Jia He > Review Date: December 10, 2023 > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > Intended Status: Informational > Summary: > I have read the review comments from Daniele about the concept of enhanced > VPN, > and the relationship with other existing terms. I agree with his suggestion to > follow the discussion and align the draft with the output. In addition, some > minor issues and also nits are found out as follows and should be considered > prior to publication. > Minor Issues: > 1、In Section 1, it is said "Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be used to > represent > both the topological instructions and the set of network resources allocated > by > network nodes to a VTN." Is it "allocated by network nodes" or "allocated to > network nodes"? If it is "network resources allocated by network nodes", why > not "allocated by centralized controllers" as well? If it is "network > resources > allocated to network nodes" which are assocated with a VTN, why not " > allocated > to network links" as well? Is there any special consideration by saying > "network nodes" only here? > [Chongfeng]： The description is a little bit confusing, actually it should > be "network resources of the network nodes and links which are allocated to a > VTN/NRP". We will update it in next revision. > 2、In Section 4, "For SRv6 data plane, the SRv6 SIDs associated with the > same > VTN can be used together to build SRv6 paths with the topological and resource > constraints of the VTN taken into consideration." Is "SRv6 Locator" missing? > [Chongfeng] SRv6 Locator is the covering prefix part of the SRv6 SIDs. In > SRv6 segment list, the SRv6 SIDs are used to indicate the forwarding path and > the set of resources used for packet processing. So the description is > correct. > Nits: > 1、Section 2, TLV 223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) is defined in RFC 5311, which > is not referenced in the draft. 2、Section 1, Paragraph 3, last sentence, > s/...need to be distributed using control plane/...need to be distributed > using > a control plane 3、Section 2, Paragraph 1, last sentecne, s/MT-ID could be used > as the identifier of VTN in control plane./MT-ID could be used as the > identifier of VTN in the control plane. 4、Section 2, "IS-IS Multi-Topology > [RFC5120]" and "IS-IS Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) [RFC5120]" are both used in > the draft. It is suggested to keep consistent throughout the draft. > [Chongfeng] Thanks for catching the nits, we will resolve them in next > revision. > Best regards, > Chongfeng > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
