ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [bess] Last Call Comment draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.txt

2014-12-03 12:39:14
Hi, Pedro -

Simple: I agree that it should be relatively straight-forward to fix the namespace issue. While I'm not intimately familiar with it, I think that RFC 3688 describes how the appropriate namespace can be assigned. I'm comfortable describing this as editorial rather than material.

RFC 3688 provides a way to ask IANA to assign a URN for a schema. It doesn’t include guidelines on how that URN should look like. From the point of view of the draft in question it is simple to modify the examples to use TBD as a URN. However IANA would probably want guidance as to what name to assign. Does it make sense to include a suggestion in the IANA section ?


That makes sense to me. Maybe somebody else knows more about the process, and could give better feedback, but what you propose is exactly what I would do under the circumstances.

Probably very material: The draft really needs some kind of text around the various issues I included in the "Second" issue paragraph, in my previous message. Specifically, there needs to be some text about assignment of route-server JIDs. This should include some explanation about how route-server JIDs relate to the redundancy scheme that's sketched out in the draft. This should also include some kind of error handling discussion around incorrect JIDs being used in messages, etc. Much of the preceding also applies to pubsub 'node' values, with an emphasis on the error handling issues. It is possible that the authors have an editorial solution to this, which would avoid material changes to the draft text, but my limited imagination can't picture what that might look like.

The reference to the “jid” value in the RD assignment procedure is incorrect; This procedure uses the IP identifier of the compute node. Earlier versions of the document assume the JID to be the IP identifier… this is no longer the case.
Thank you for highlighting this… I’ll update the document.

I look forward to seeing the updated text. I'm not sure that your proposal covers all the issues that I've identified, but I'll wait to see the text before I leap to any conclusions. :)

Cheers,
-Benson




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