Re: [bess] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-01

Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> Tue, 26 January 2016 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mach.chen@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132F91B2FB4; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:54:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QPIG3TzneDG8; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34201B2FB2; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CHL07778; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:54:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:54:45 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:54:45 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.177]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:54:40 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd review on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-01
Thread-Index: AdE8l6g2f4Ni5AFqQjuOGGjy0vqRCwbIZunwABLRaoA=
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:54:38 +0000
Message-ID: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B6DAB62@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B686E7A@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <BLUPR0501MB17159255B72F2E69C3B8A239D4D80@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0501MB17159255B72F2E69C3B8A239D4D80@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.102.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.56A71837.005E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.177, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: e3259ccff9668e75d148fbe9eb661365
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/mzvIGN8Apv6cbXjK-0-ZUn7gYjg>
Cc: "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-01
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:54:52 -0000

Hi Jeffery,

Some responses inline...

> 
> >
> > 3. From the title, the document is to define mibs for L2 and L3
> > Multicast VPNs, it's better to define and scope what are L2 multicast
> > VPN and L3 multicast VPN.
> > And the draft uses "Multicast in VPN" to identify MVPN, it seems not
> > accurate. It's better to use the consistent definition and description
> > for MVPN through the whole document IMHO.
> 
> Zzh> The Introduction section makes it clear that the scope is for VPLS and (IP)
> VPN Multicast. As I just alluded to in the previous sentence, I'll use "IP VPN" for
> L3 case. Is that ok?

According to RFC6513, Multicast in BGP/MPLS in IP VPN is called MVPN, you may take a look at RFC6513 and try to align the terms with it.

> 
> >
> > 4. Section 4,
> > The LAST-UPDATED, ORGANIZATION, CONTACT-INFO and the Revision history
> > should be updated to reflect the latest status.
> 
> Zzh> I had expected to update this at the final step of publication. Will follow
> appropriate advice.
> 
> >
> > 5. Page 5,
> >
> > This document defines the following flags:
> >
> >        + Leaf Information Required (L)"
> >
> > s/+ Leaf Information Required (L)"/ Leaf Information Required (L)"
> 
> Zzh> The text is quoting RFC 6514, " 5.  PMSI Tunnel Attribute". Having said
> that, I'll just remove the quote and simply say it's the flag field in the PMSI
> Tunnel Attribute, because other flags could be defined in other specifications.

OK.

> >
> > 6.
> > Section 5.  Security Considerations
> >    "N/A"
> >
> > The same issue as the MVPN mib, please enhance it.
> 
> Zzh> Will research.

Sure, please.

> 
> >
> > 7. Please make sure that the MIB Modules are compiled cleanly.
> 
> Zzh> Please let me know if you've noticed any issue.

No.

Once the document updated, we can start the MIB doctor review.

Best regards,
Mach

> 
> Thanks!
> Jeffrey
> 
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach