Hi Sandy,
Thanks for your review and comments. I have submitted -07 revision.
Please see zzh> below.
From: zhang.zh...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 9:43 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Wen Lin ;
jorge.raba...@nokia.com; ke...@arrcus.com; saja...@cisco.com;
ext-zzhang_i...@hotmail.com
Cc: bess@ietf.org; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; matthew.bo...@nokia.com
Subject: [bess] comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06
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" ?
Zzh> Changed.
1. In section 6.2, the last sentence of the fourth paragrah, if it should be
"there is no per-region S-PMSI aggregation routes"?
Zzh> "Per-region" itself already means aggregation.
1. In section 6.2, if it is better to add some detail description for area
ID EC construction?
Zzh> Added.
1. In section 6.3, if it is better to add some detail description for Route
Target construction?
Zzh> Added.
5. The following is the idnits result:
Zzh> Addressed.
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey
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.
Juniper Business Use Only
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
