Re: [bess] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06

["Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Linda,

Thank you for the changes. The status of the RTGdir review has been updated. 

Best Regards, 
Shuping 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:17 AM
> To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
> 
> ShuPing,
> 
> Thank you very much for the explanation to your comments.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/  has
> changes to reflect the suggestions from you.
> 
> Can you please change the State of the RTGdir review to READY?
> 
> All your comments have been addressed.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 7:49 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
> 
> Hi Linda,
> 
> Please find in line below.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 12:56 PM
> > To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
> >
> >
> > Shuping,
> >
> > Thank you very much for the review. Sorry for the late response.
> >
> > Please see below of the changes to address your comments.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shuping Peng via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:36 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06
> >
> > Reviewer: Shuping Peng
> > Review result: Has Nits
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft.
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata
> > %2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8daaf0e46a9
> e4697fe55
> >
> 08db00d1d036%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638
> 104673369
> >
> 564690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> 2luMzIiLCJ
> >
> BTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q%2FSTltuw
> czV3O2Wu2%
> > 2Bw%2Ffl21cMWmBxPaGSsOMoRNqv4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06&am
> >
> p;data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C288cea29b54f48d7
> >
> cb5f08dab65b923e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C
> >
> 638022801675645042%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
> >
> MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C
> > %7C&amp;sdata=kQVcmoPK9mBaEC6m6vVAv%2BFGR9NpmiOMWhccvGq
> PJ
> > bY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
> > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> > perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for
> > publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time
> > during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose
> > of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.
> >
> > As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the
> > review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published.
> > Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call
> comments.
> >
> > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrac.
> >
> t%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C8daaf0e46a9e
> 4697fe5
> >
> 508db00d1d036%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C63
> 810467336
> >
> 9564690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi
> V2luMzIiLC
> >
> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fc5FfMDPJ
> Nm72XPCQaT
> > BslRpCNs9%2F0aocKE28LbMIjw%3D&reserved=0
> >
> ools.ietf.org%2Farea%2Frtg%2Ftrac%2Fwiki%2FRtgDir&amp;data=05%7C01
> > %7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C288cea29b54f48d7cb5f08dab65b9
> 2
> >
> 3e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C6380228016756
> >
> 45042%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2l
> >
> uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata
> >
> =ZGwIcNO6bxB2d97r%2F0LUB5HRku8iSb%2FU5klg8SXRK9k%3D&amp;reser
> > ved=0
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-06.txt
> > Reviewer: Shuping Peng
> > Review Date: 25-Oct-22
> > Intended Status: Informational
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> > should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > 3.1.3
> >   "The SD-WAN Traffic Segmentation is enabled on a single SD-WAN
> > Service to a
> >   single
> >    subscriber." Here the word "subscriber" is used for the first time. More
> >    associations with the context or more explanations would be
> > appreciated.
> > [Linda] Good point. This sentence is removed as the information is
> > duplicated.
> >
> > 5.2
> >    UPDATE #1b for Route Route 12.1.1.x/24:
> >      - MP-NLRI Path Attribute:
> >          12.1.1.x/24
> >          Nexthop: 2.2.2.2 (C-PE2)
> >      - Encapsulation Extended Community: Type= SDWAN-Hybrid
> >      - Color Extended Community: YELLOW
> >
> > Should the Type be "MPLS" instead of "SDWAN-Hybrid" here since it is
> > mentioned above that "...suppose that Route 10.1.x.x/16 can be carried
> > by either MPLS or IPsec and Route 12.1.1.x/24 can only be carried by
> MPLS..."?
> >
> > Nits:
> > 1. SDWAN or SD-WAN?
> > [Linda] SDWAN is same as SD-WAN. Added it to the definition section.
> >
> > 2. page 15, s/for the Node Loopback address:/for the Node Loopback
> > address.
> > [Linda] what do you mean?
> 
> ":" -> "."
> 
> >
> > 3. page 17, 18, s/Type, Tunneltype, Tunnel-type/TYPE?
> > [Linda] what do you mean?
> 
> Could these various formats be simply unified as "TYPE"?
> 
> Best regards,
> Shuping
> 
> >
> > Thank you very much
> > Linda