Re: [bess] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: (with COMMENT)

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

Thanks for your review.

I have fixed the issues below (I will submit a revision when I finish addressing some comments from others), but have two clarifications - please see zzh> below.


Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2:50 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: (with COMMENT)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkXlmOokW8$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkX9SFzLZk$



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Russ Housley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3fAtK3w0wRrSeNCGgzBnr86jTRU__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkX96rP7Ns$ ).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkX0YAcIcU$ ), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 14
```
onal label spaces is to be used to lookup the label, hence those label space
                                   ^^^^^^ ``` The word "lookup" is a noun. The verb is spelled with a white space.

#### Section 1, paragraph 16
```
referred to as upstream-assigned. Otherwise it is downstream-assigned. An ups
                                  ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Otherwise".

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 5
```
VPN 1, and so forth. Now only 1000 label instead of 1,000,000 labels are nee
                                   ^^^^^ ``` Possible agreement error. The noun "label" seems to be countable.

#### Section 2.2.1, paragraph 2
```
hen tunnel segmentation is applied to a S-PMSI, certain nodes are "segmentati
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 2.2.2.1, paragraph 1
```
 tunnel T2 and Flow-2 by tunnel T3. Then when the segmentation point receives
                                    ^^^^ ``` Consider adding a comma here.

#### Section 2.2.2.1, paragraph 3
```
 labels for segmented S-PMSI independently from its assigned label block tha
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean "independently of"?

Zzh> That "from" goes with the earlier "allocate" not "independently": "allocate labels ... from its assigned label block". I changed it to "independently allocate labels from ...".

#### Section 2.2.2.2, paragraph 1
```
-PMSIs for the same VPN/BD to share the a VPN/BD-identifying label that leads
                                    ^^^^^ ``` Two determiners in a row. Choose either "the" or "a".

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 5
```
nel encapsulation of data packets arriving on the tunnel. * They MUST all hav
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` The usual preposition after "arriving" is "at", not "on". Did you mean "arriving at"?

Zzh> I changed it to "via". I feel that "at the tunnel" is a little inaccurate (it's really coming out of the tunnel).
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkXUY8yoh0$
[ICT]: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkXbFLTGQI$
[IRT]: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EupXuCkh2mnHJtnCzM5Y-b7mTyMdfqM0_c75sREZPUhZ5xrIFAXijD3WOxPvCkra7F1NlAkX0YAcIcU$