Hi,
I am OK with minor issue 2 now.
Issue 3 was my only point
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:36 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
On Jan 12, 2012, at 23:16 , Roni Even wrote:
Hi,
I looked at the 08 version and the major issues are addressed.
What about minor issue number 3?
Good point! I will fix (as Stewart suggests, maybe just remove the
reference).
To your minor issue (2), I've clarified the structure. Do you still
want to see how it fits into the NLRI?
Thanks,
Kireeti.
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