Hi,
WGLC review of draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-07
I've reviewed this document a couple of times as it was being made, and
I have attended a few of the design team calls mainly as a spectator. I
co-chaired the L3SM working group so I have some clue as to what is
going on. I'm working with some of the authors on the EU-funded Teraflow
project where we are putting together a top-to-bottom YANG-based
management system and where the L3NM function is clearly needed.
As part of working group last call I've had another look at the draft
and I conclude it is ready for publication.
It may be worth explicitly notifying the BESS working group during IETF
last call to ensure adequate review from L3VPN experts.
There are some minor points below.
Best,
Adrian
===
1.
s/used to fed/used to feed/
---
4.
I think that [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-framework] is a better
reference than [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition]. The
latter is due to be merged into the former, so in time only the former
will contain useful material.
---
5.
s/Such view is only/Such a view is only/
s/a L3SM template/an L3SM template/
s/A L3VPN involves/An L3VPN involves/
s/represented as using/represented using/
---
6.1
OLD
Also common addition and/or removal of sites of an existing customer
VPN can benefit of using L3NM by creation of workflows that either
prune or add nodes as required from the network data mode.
NEW
A common additional function for VPNs is the addition or removal of
customer sites. Workflows can use the L3NM in these scenarios to
add or prune nodes from the network data model as required.
END
---
6.2
s/manage to avoid asymmetric/managed to avoid asymmetric/
s/usage of unavailable/use of unavailable/
---
7.2
s/scheme(s)/schemes/
---
7.5
s/enable a VPN network access/enables VPN network access/
s/values are defines defined in/values are defined in/
---
7.5
OLD
'router-id': Indicates a unique Router ID information. It can be an
IPv4 or IPv6 address as a function of the enclosed address-family.
NEW
'router-id': Indicates a unique Router ID. It can be either an IPv4
IPv6 address as a function of the setting of 'address-family'.
END
---
7.5
'maximum-routes': Indicates the maximum prefixes that the VPN node
can accept for a given address family and routing protocol. If
'protocol' is set to 'any', this means that the maximum value
applies to any active routing protocol.
To check that you mean "any". That is, the maximum applied to each
protocol individually. You would be better to use "each".
Or you may mean "all". I.e., the maximum applies to the sum of all
protocols. You would be better to use "applies as a total across all"
---
7.6.1
s/a L3VPN/an L3VPN/
---
7.6.2
s/or both information/or both/
---
7.6.2
Figure 11 shows the structure of the dynamic IPv4 address assignment.
and
Figure 12 shows the structure of the dynamic IPv6 address assignment.
Is the word "dynamic" wrong here as the options include "static"?
---
7.6.2
I expected Figure 12 to show provider-dhcp-slaac and slaac
---
7.6.3
s/route(s)/routes/
s/base that make use of/base that makes use of/
s/IP address(es)/IP addresses/
s/route(s)/routes/
---
7.6.3
OLD
'warning-threshold':a warning
notification will be triggered'
A warning notification is triggered when this limit is reached.
NEW
'warning-threshold': A warning notification is triggered when
this limit is reached.
END
---
7.7
s/will have an effect to disable/will have the effect of disabling/
s/Global data nodes/global data nodes/ ??
s/Except the 'status' node/Except for the 'status' node/
---
8.
leaf default-route
s/route(s)/routes/ (twice)
-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 22 March 2021 13:32
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: L3NM and vpn-common documents
Hello, WG. One of the action items out of the 110 meeting was to put
the L3NM (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-07)
and vpn-common
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-03) documents
through WG LC. The authors have said that these can work independently
from the L2NM document, which is still being revised.
This begins a two-week WG LC for these two documents. Please provide
your comments and concerns by April 5, 2021. Additionally, if anyone is
interested in acting as shepherd for either of these documents, please
let the chairs know.
Thanks.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
