[bess] Re: Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09

[Luc André Burdet <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the review.
I went over the PDF to address the inline corrections, an incorporate your suggestions below.  Some of those incomplete sentences were left hanging from a significant -08 to -09 rewrite, I have addressed them all in -10

Regards,
Luc André

Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  [e-mail]  |  Tel: [phone]


From: Dave Thaler via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 at 13:43
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-09
Reviewer: Dave Thaler
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned INTDIR reviewer.  I found the document
well written and easy to read, other than a number of
typos and grammatical errors.

A PDF with my comments marked up inline can be found at:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aqj-Bj9PNivcn_xoEc8XRepNkAgJaQ?e=7keL4H

A few of my comments are listed below, but see the PDF for
many more trivial ones.

Section 1.4: "The fast DF recovery solution maintains backwards-compatibility
      (see Section 4) by ensuring that PEs any unrecognized new BGP
      Extended Community."
I can't parse grammar around "PEs any unrecognized".  Perhaps a
word missing?

Section 2.1: Is it worth adding that the seconds are encoded
in network byte order? This might be assumed by most readers
but might not hurt to say explicitly.  Up to you.

Section 3: "To maintain the preference for minimal loss over duplicate traffic,
   PE1 should carve slightly before PE2 (with skew)."
Should the "should" be MUST or SHOULD?

Section 4: "[RFC7432] and do not rely on the new SCT BGP extended community."
And what?  Seems like something is missing here.

Dave


_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]