ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07

2012-01-13 01:35:02
Hi,
I looked at the 08 version and the major issues are addressed.
What about minor issue number 3?

Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:23 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; 
draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07

Hi Roni,

On Sep 7, 2011, at 4:37 , Roni Even wrote:

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Thanks!

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-9-7
IETF LC End Date: 2011-9-27
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an informational
RFC.

Major issues:

The IANA considerations section says:
"the values  already allocated are in Table 1 of Section 4.  The
allocation policy  for new entries up to and including value 127 is
"Standards Action".  The allocation policy for values 128 through 251
is "First Come First Served".  The values from 252 through 255 are for
"Experimental Use"."

Standards Action will be changed to Expert Review.

Yet this is document is intended for Informational status which
contradict the standard action. This is also true for the second
registry defined.

Is this document really an Informational one?

My only comment is that it is not Historic.

Minor issues:

1.       In section  1.2.2 "Since "traditional" Layer 2 VPNs (i.e.,
real Frame Relay circuits connecting sites) are indistinguishable from
tunnel-based VPNs from  the customer's point-of-view, migrating from
one to the other raises  few issues." What are the few issues?

A subtlety: "few issues" means not many, not deep; it's a careful way
of saying, "just about no issues".  "A few issues" would require
elaboration.

2.       In section 4 "L2VPN TLVs can be added to extend the
information carried in the NLRI, using the format shown in Figure 2".
How is the TLV carried in the NLRI, in which field, section 4.1 only
talk about the structure of the TLV.

I'll take the figure from 3.2.2 of RFC 4761 and show where the TLVs go.

3.       Section 4.2 refers to section 4 but I am not sure where this
mechanism in section 4 is.

Will clarify.






Nits/editorial comments:

1.       Section 3.1 is called network topology but the whole text is
an example of a network topology. Maybe the title should be "Example of
a network toplogy".

Sure.

2.       Section 5 starts with "As defined so far in the document .."
But the using IP only is already discussed in previous sections.

Do you have a suggestion for rewording?

Thanks,
Kireeti.




<ATT00001..txt>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>