[bess] comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Thu, 18 July 2019 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576D4120672 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZJo6uEhY0gf for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F8E12067C for <bess@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 449269D86E492FAA7301; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:43:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x6I1hFPc075802; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:43:15 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:43:15 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:43:15 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5d2fceb34ee70ea1
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201907180943154515209@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: zzhang@juniper.net, wlin@juniper.net, jorge.rabadan@nokia.com, keyur@arrcus.com, sajassi@cisco.com, zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com
Cc: bess@ietf.org, stephane.litkowski@orange.com, matthew.bocci@nokia.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn x6I1hFPc075802
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/5g8rmIxWfejG4xRCvvhNZO1947o>
Subject: [bess] comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 01:43:50 -0000

Hi authors,







I read this version and have some comments.






Thanks,


Sandy


==================================

1. In section 6.1, since the example is about AS, if it is better to change the title of this section to "AS/Area va. Region" ?

2. In section 6.2, the last sentence of the fourth paragrah, if it should be "there is no per-region S-PMSI aggregation routes"?


3. In section 6.2, if it is better to add some detail description for area ID EC construction?


4. In section 6.3, if it is better to add some detail description for Route Target construction?


5. The following is the idnits result:





idnits 2.16.02 

/tmp/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates-06.txt:


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see


  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** There are 16 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest


     one being 3 characters in excess of 72.

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC7432, but the


     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.




  Miscellaneous warnings:

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (June 17, 2019) is 22 days in the past.  Is this


     intentional?




  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------




     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references

     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)




  == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7524' is mentioned on line 196, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 763, but no explicit


     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7432' is defined on line 773, but no explicit


     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7524' is defined on line 778, but no explicit


     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7988' is defined on line 784, but no explicit


     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bier-architecture' is defined on line 791,


     but no explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-bier-evpn' is defined on line 797, but no


     explicit reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6513' is defined on line 802, but no explicit


     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6514' is defined on line 806, but no explicit


     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework has been


     published as RFC 8584

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track has been published


     as RFC 8534

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-bier-architecture has been published as


     RFC 8279




     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).




     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about

     the items above.