Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I am OK with minor issue 2 now. 
Issue 3  was my only point
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:36 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07
> 
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 23:16 , Roni Even wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > I looked at the 08 version and the major issues are addressed.
> > What about minor issue number 3?
> 
> Good point!  I will fix (as Stewart suggests, maybe just remove the
> reference).
> 
> To your minor issue (2), I've clarified the structure.  Do you still
> want to see how it fits into the NLRI?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.
> 
> > Roni Even
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:23 PM
> >> To: Roni Even
> >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; IETF-Discussion list
> >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07
> >>
> >> Hi Roni,
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2011, at 4:37 , Roni Even wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background
> on
> >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> >>> comments
> >> you may receive.
> >>>
> >>> Document: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07
> >>> Reviewer: Roni Even
> >>> Review Date: 2011-9-7
> >>> IETF LC End Date: 2011-9-27
> >>> IESG Telechat date:
> >>>
> >>> Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an
> informational
> >> RFC.
> >>>
> >>> Major issues:
> >>>
> >>> The IANA considerations section says:
> >>> "the values  already allocated are in Table 1 of Section 4.  The
> >> allocation policy  for new entries up to and including value 127 is
> >> "Standards Action".  The allocation policy for values 128 through
> 251
> >> is "First Come First Served".  The values from 252 through 255 are
> >> for "Experimental Use"."
> >>
> >> Standards Action will be changed to Expert Review.
> >>
> >>> Yet this is document is intended for Informational status which
> >> contradict the standard action. This is also true for the second
> >> registry defined.
> >>>
> >>> Is this document really an Informational one?
> >>
> >> My only comment is that it is not Historic.
> >>
> >>> Minor issues:
> >>>
> >>> 1.       In section  1.2.2 "Since "traditional" Layer 2 VPNs (i.e.,
> >> real Frame Relay circuits connecting sites) are indistinguishable
> >> from tunnel-based VPNs from  the customer's point-of-view, migrating
> >> from one to the other raises  few issues." What are the few issues?
> >>
> >> A subtlety: "few issues" means not many, not deep; it's a careful
> way
> >> of saying, "just about no issues".  "A few issues" would require
> >> elaboration.
> >>
> >>> 2.       In section 4 "L2VPN TLVs can be added to extend the
> >> information carried in the NLRI, using the format shown in Figure
> 2".
> >> How is the TLV carried in the NLRI, in which field, section 4.1 only
> >> talk about the structure of the TLV.
> >>
> >> I'll take the figure from 3.2.2 of RFC 4761 and show where the TLVs
> go.
> >>
> >>> 3.       Section 4.2 refers to section 4 but I am not sure where
> this
> >> mechanism in section 4 is.
> >>
> >> Will clarify.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>>
> >>> 1.       Section 3.1 is called network topology but the whole text
> is
> >> an example of a network topology. Maybe the title should be "Example
> >> of a network toplogy".
> >>
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >>> 2.       Section 5 starts with "As defined so far in the document
> .."
> >> But the using IP only is already discussed in previous sections.
> >>
> >> Do you have a suggestion for rewording?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kireeti.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <ATT00001..txt>
> >