Re: RtgDir review : draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator
"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]> Sun, 3 Jan 2016 12:59:51 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.l2tpext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============5486388345722762815== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E5251CC7-C0CE-4A40-BBB2-6E0A64C7A77E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Apple-Mail=_E5251CC7-C0CE-4A40-BBB2-6E0A64C7A77E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4164A0D4-A68F-4822-8206-97BDB7E0DCBE" --Apple-Mail=_4164A0D4-A68F-4822-8206-97BDB7E0DCBE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thanks Manav for this second RTG-Dir review (the first one from Dec 18th = by Loa) Please see inline. The upcoming rev will address all your minor = concerns. > On Dec 31, 2015, at 7:55 AM, Manav Bhatia <[email protected]> = wrote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this = draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or = routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG = review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is = to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the = Routing Directorate, please see = http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir = <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir> >=20 > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, = it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF = Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through = discussion or by updating the draft. >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-01.txt > Reviewer: Manav Bhatia > Review Date: 2015-12-31 > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > Intended Status: Proposed Standard (ID says Standards track) >=20 > Summary: >=20 > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be = resolved before publication. >=20 > Comments: >=20 > I have issues in general readability of the draft. There were parts = that were not very clear but that could also be because i am not very = conversant with L2TP. >=20 > Major Issues: >=20 > 1. The document describes how one or more than one S-BFD descriminator = can be advertised using L2TPv3 AVP. The draft when originally written = was inline with the popular idea then, that a node MAY want to advertise = more than one S-BFD descriminator. This idea however, is losing currency = since the reason that necessitated this capability is now being = questioned. Given this, the authors might need to rewrite sections of = this draft, if the consensus is to remove the notion of advertising = multiple discriminators. Consensus on this item seems to be that the advertisement vehicles = (OSPF, ISIS, L2TP) should allow for multiple discriminators, while the = sbfd spec can constrain this to one. Based on this, there is no change needed on this doc on this point = (other than editorials as also pointed out by Loa). >=20 > Minor Issues: >=20 > 1. Most of the acroynms have not been expanded and referenced. >=20 Ack =E2=80=94 fixed. > 2. The figure in the draft is not clear. I dont even want to guess how = that needs to be interpreted. >=20 No need to guess, it=E2=80=99s the same as with the ISIS draft (and a = format which is quite common actually). Nonetheless, I added an additional figure to completely disambiguate = potential problems or misinterpretations. I hope the new figure is = clear. > Cheers, Manav Thanks again, Manav! =E2=80=94 Carlos. --Apple-Mail=_4164A0D4-A68F-4822-8206-97BDB7E0DCBE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = class=3D"">Thanks Manav for this second RTG-Dir review (the first one = from Dec 18th by Loa)<div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D"">Please see inline. The upcoming rev will address all your = minor concerns.</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote = type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D"">On Dec 31, 2015, at 7:55 AM, = Manav Bhatia <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = class=3D"">[email protected]</a>> wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><meta = http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" = class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">Hello,<br class=3D""><br = class=3D"">I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for = this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or = routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG = review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is = to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the = Routing Directorate, please see <a = href=3D"http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir" = class=3D"">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir</a><br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">Although these comments are primarily for the = use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them = along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and = strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.<br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">Document: = draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-01.txt<br class=3D"">Reviewer: = Manav Bhatia<br class=3D"">Review Date: 2015-12-31<br class=3D"">IETF LC = End Date: date-if-known<br class=3D"">Intended Status: Proposed Standard = (ID says Standards track)<br class=3D""><br class=3D"">Summary:<br = class=3D""><br class=3D"">I have some minor concerns about this document = that I think should be resolved before publication.<br class=3D""><div = class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Comments:</div><div = class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">I have issues in general = readability of the draft. There were parts that were not very clear but = that could also be because i am not very conversant with = L2TP. </div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D"">Major Issues:</div><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div = class=3D""><div class=3D"">1. The document describes how one or more = than one S-BFD descriminator can be advertised using L2TPv3 AVP. The = draft when originally written was inline with the popular idea then, = that a node MAY want to advertise more than one S-BFD descriminator. = This idea however, is losing currency since the reason that necessitated = this capability is now being questioned. Given this, the authors might = need to rewrite sections of this draft, if the consensus is to remove = the notion of advertising multiple = discriminators.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = class=3D""></div><div>Consensus on this item seems to be that the = advertisement vehicles (OSPF, ISIS, L2TP) should allow for multiple = discriminators, while the sbfd spec can constrain this to = one.</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>Based on this, there is no = change needed on this doc on this point (other than editorials as also = pointed out by Loa).</div><br class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" = class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div = class=3D""><div class=3D""><br class=3D""></div><div class=3D"">Minor = Issues:<br class=3D""></div></div><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div><div class=3D""><div class=3D"">1. Most of the acroynms = have not been expanded and referenced.</div></div><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = class=3D""></div><div>Ack =E2=80=94 fixed.</div><br class=3D""><blockquote= type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div= class=3D"">2. The figure in the draft is not clear. I dont even want to = guess how that needs to be interpreted.</div><div class=3D""><br = class=3D""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br = class=3D""></div><div>No need to guess, it=E2=80=99s the same as with = the ISIS draft (and a format which is quite common = actually).</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>Nonetheless, I added an = additional figure to completely disambiguate potential problems or = misinterpretations. I hope the new figure is clear.</div><br = class=3D""><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><div = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">Cheers, Manav</div></div> </div></blockquote><br class=3D""></div><div>Thanks again, = Manav!</div><div><br class=3D""></div><div>=E2=80=94 Carlos.</div><br = class=3D""></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_4164A0D4-A68F-4822-8206-97BDB7E0DCBE-- --Apple-Mail=_E5251CC7-C0CE-4A40-BBB2-6E0A64C7A77E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWiRtHAAoJEIXgpQGOZny9hk0P/iGEZQfWBb+MAmhkkjlDpvwD f40JGw1cKZHs1/GogETskWMoCNpRQ4BuPIjhCS6QyeR8YfomToRad87Ss6DPl888 opMpojWADRqzvpRrjh62gcy3p1hbpp6tjlPdALmNfd+zgZfmGhL1VhlhOP6y6+p1 iq8Dq5ZwjTkw/54wklVUdFsky8RYsQqamzV1iUL9HeQXgseVs1uMEmKUOtofzB3o G1e72judbL2q91HXTGfstmHYvuizrPRUGLgUmlEg6a1Bh+WoZl23QlKkw9I/yJxj 4FoZHunT44UWoU+32/0hhBieZezjWMO34SeU5Q5tUaDHlCh6nlolc0zLrfP9qFFy umjsaKEi9/19PegNMTpkA2Fh4YvQbFrsfZh/CfmqO4EgrHvQ5RL6swDy5p6VEVz2 Ihy+VGmQLjqnFGNGCYkp9r8R7hcxYayNp5dtnoB5NBG8J9MZqHjPU24WEv/H40Qs 1javC9ZmC2nPlQftGyace2PZ6V9cNwS1cqObBo+hV995kaSNI0UcNSrB/k8leR5r 7+NbNOmz2QXLa1BVlruX99KlMC2gIczHrcdGqh+rjQ7cxtEEo/sKYh/hALmKTg/i qhE2nJJMn3fuMi6T1QnZ9T1q6ZwUfHXKDQmTIU81wvGZoyMnNkISjK7vFSKXTfY7 afMENl3hywrCMLBt7la5 =diE9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E5251CC7-C0CE-4A40-BBB2-6E0A64C7A77E-- --===============5486388345722762815== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ L2tpext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext --===============5486388345722762815==--