Re: [bess] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05

Pete, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot on the BCP/proposed standard question and flagged the rest of your comments as needing to be addressed.

Alissa

> On Dec 19, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-0
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2018-12-19
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-18
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready with some nits, but one process issue/query.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> This document is intended for Proposed Standard. It doesn't have protocol as
> much as operational configuration information for integration. RFC 2026 section
> 5 says:
> 
>   The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
>   standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
>   [...]
>   Historically Internet standards have generally been concerned with
>   the technical specifications for hardware and software required for
>   computer communication across interconnected networks.  However,
>   since the Internet itself is composed of networks operated by a great
>   variety of organizations, with diverse goals and rules, good user
>   service requires that the operators and administrators of the
>   Internet follow some common guidelines for policies and operations.
> 
> That sounds like what this document is doing. It also sounds like this document
> is unlike to advance to Internet Standard, as there's not the kind of iterative
> implementation that protocols go through. It's not a big deal either way, but
> this does seem better suited to a BCP.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Abstract: s/draft/document/g
> 
> Introduction: "Many Service Providers (SPs) who...". You don't use "SP"
> anywhere else in the document, and other places where you use the phrase it
> isn't capitalized. Suggest just saying "Many service providers who..."
> 
> §1, Definitions:
> 
>   (PBB-)VPLS: refers to both, PBB-VPLS and VPLS. As for EVPN, this
>   abbreviation is used when the text applies to both technologies.
> 
> It says EVPN in the second sentence. I don't understand. Did you mean VPLS?
> 
> §2: The 4 "MUST"s and 1 "MAY" aren't requirements on the implementation;
> they're the requirements this document will satisfy. Seems like they shouldn't
> be capitalized.
> 
> §3.2, second bullet, 3.4.1, last paragraph, §4.2, second bullet, and §4.4.1,
> last paragraph: Why are the "must"s not capitalized?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art