IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13

Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Wed, 10 March 2021 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C526C3A2060; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:41:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pwYModGlEE3I; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balrog.mythic-beasts.com (balrog.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B6B83A205F; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 01:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [82.36.104.30] (port=58723 helo=[192.168.0.34]) by balrog.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1lJvKy-0002gL-Kw; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:41:09 +0000
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Message-Id: <610C48B7-7B82-4ADC-8411-033752F818CE@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CF842183-2678-421C-8C2B-0173A8779396"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:40:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: <d41c218c-34c6-4b0d-8691-232c5a1b9cf1@Spark>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution.all@ietf.org
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <160620226786.32561.612670509830410882@ietfa.amsl.com> <d41c218c-34c6-4b0d-8691-232c5a1b9cf1@Spark>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 14
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KQGEYVKfAoXeiAzQDsDSLjRpNzs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:41:16 -0000

Awesome, thanks Jeff. Ben


> On 9 Mar 2021, at 18:31, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> My apologies for belated response, and many thanks for your review, will publish the updated version ASAP.
> 
> please see inline
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> On Nov 23, 2020, 11:17 PM -0800, Ben Niven-Jenkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>, wrote:
> Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13.txt
> Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Review Date: 24 November 2020
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> 
> Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
> 
> Comments: The document is of high quality and easy to read.
> 
> Major Issues: No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 1) Section 2, 2nd bullet point states “the TLV must be considered malformed.” I
> think the must in this instance is really an RFC2119 MUST, please correct this.
> [jeff] ack
> 
> 2) Section 2, last paragraph states “The existing AG TLV 108 and the EAG TLV
> defined in this document MAY be advertised together.” However the existing AG
> TLV is 1088 not 108, please correct this.
> [jeff] already fixed in v14
> 
> Nits:
> 1) Section 2, 2nd bullet point: s/The length value must MUST be multiple of
> 4./The length value MUST be a multiple of 4./
> [jeff] ack
> 
> 2) Section 2, 3rd bullet point: s/that are enable/that are enabled/
> [jeff] ack
> 
> Thanks
> Ben
> 
>

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email