[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 26 January 2018 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31354126D74; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id om3nrK_I1D5T; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com (mail-oi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39ED61200E5; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id c189so563938oib.12; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FJwQ5k0UeYXhxDuvK+/e0KK6uMWP97wWW4hIe3Yii3s=; b=WuiWjzfhUWl6MYz5A/LA5HMGOtoPWZdGD4wkvZz61vxKZYwiFZI3BYMhimLCqDNq+h dVMPI8oKpOX3t3J2wp/GyiDxzPekSGGX3jr4Bz7DcOqVwxvnZ43BrrwyjRD0F2omk74H 4G8vixlPi9zjgQxOdvW2wGrodEjRSoaNoCiXjbujq1wIUictXzqofY06CZDWwZGvQPE5 UfrZDN5MkdiAaoslDkVUWX/5EFDRp/Aod86BciodcJIncpV4UG+Mvydcq0bKbYOs7uRl QDXTK1FW4zVIrPRLIuBFQEEr//101NjzqMU9alXWxTFe79+WoMXojmAQwLtd4I+WFscS 8GBQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FJwQ5k0UeYXhxDuvK+/e0KK6uMWP97wWW4hIe3Yii3s=; b=iGiVxEZkce74OrXp61tdSVwOxjzO56oWtBcXn2e/RAeH6a9DuFqoNmkPKiH4jwlk1d yGEOJEJUrBGM4kIo1gURbB2Wboevcen0Y+acIRurBrUNxlcfwrADyntCHFxSCbozA7o2 SpYkanyccIRLSKvkRCLgX6aKTH62JgLOoaqw/2gm3HWGqS6bGIpGuWal127obFlWOQli Ivkh32c3nSlhm55/9t4l0GhKXbSny4E5YVNjOKIt/0o+oH2cpDMLU1OwnV3UFJWWCTr6 3oycbW49cNfdll7RlHxJ+eiYFCuHNutoWEnlK3m4Tjq3M+ozWeS0WLFAN5l5ZaQQwmV6 HGqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytd0rQXrh2723cdgvpV05StXwFhcC7Aa5Dd7p9608ff3eutwzmYv pYkfHnl4d1DOtBPc3OaCYuI92lSsUXpic6eiafo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224yNrmcUtqV9fgXe6F26vbbkb0ryMODB8GFeHfmfyQron/m8FFLDZQcVVuF5TGU9q1dI2GobT04L1Kkz6KHmeQ=
X-Received: by with SMTP id v66mr12832315oia.214.1517003663411; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:54:22 -0500
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (467)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:54:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMMESsxi8nYzsBsomGvkrChiV-hjWwoNdwE4sk_hpFh4se6cEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org, bess-chairs@ietf.org, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134fe587b0edd0563b4f071"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/l-AHEbwdpeEetcAQEmHqdiBtIFA>
Subject: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:54:29 -0000

Dear authors:

I just finished reading this document.  Thank you for a well written and
straight forward document!!

I have some comments (see below) that I think are easy to address.  I am
then starting the IETF Last Call.




M1. All the rfc2119 keywords in this text should not be capitalized because
they are part of an example:

   For example, a PE part of a VPLS and with a local T = 1,
   MUST only transmit traffic with a flow label to those peers that
   signaled R = 1.  And if the same PE has local R = 1, it MUST only
   expect to receive traffic with a flow label from peers with T = 1.
   Any other traffic MUST NOT have a flow label.

M2. Security Considerations: I agree that there are no new issues.
However, please also point to rfc4761 and any other document that defines
the base functionality being modified here.


P1. "This draft introduces an OPTIONAL mode of operation..."  There's no
need for "OPTIONAL" to be Normative in this sentence since it is just
describing what it is, not specifying behavior.  s/OPTIONAL/optional

P2. The new registry has a policy of "IETF Review", which basically means
that any RFC (not just Standards Track RFCs) can use the bits in the
registry.  I ask because there are only 4 bits left.  Note that I'm not
asking you to necessarily change the policy...just pointing it out.

P3. "T   When the bit value is 1, the PE is requesting the ability..."  Did
you mean "announce the ability" instead?


P5. References:  I think these can be Informative: rfc4385, rfc8077, rfc4928