Re: [Idr] [BULK] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-20

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Fri, 17 April 2020 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
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 DF7A03A0FFE; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
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 wDP5MZ0JreaM; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa36.google.com (mail-vk1-xa36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B4453A101A; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa36.google.com with SMTP id c23so354540vkc.0; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=26wMrjmiS/AHCVcBLqU5eSjUVBprvNjKeRY5Wd2TWFo=; b=VJD9uLAcLbYqYnEG+3YNdE1FwflwnFByrfXxxUo2365PwVpYRrvglugBZwusdNUoyX HUGW1AJ7zD4oD62WmVI1ypwzHS4DOOhdfsqPtYXY9HnF3W662MTYPX7GVAAh5pnKYdle A7zjF0cMJQzv/UrTQxLBP5BaBPikRw3jFCQS13uGOJdcaTw3JOBHN83Yheycx2HGPBkS GbxSZ2CncZOBRheDGfpZua9lO9o1mA18zslf+NfsPTTG6VO6dYHtFJ3jtJUDJGfY28Wg tf9L7UBGGuRU4lsAs0emIOL2dC1MhYT6lkJY1hkqwoy6uDiJ/0VzN6tbMYGzCMMgvYHj BE3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=26wMrjmiS/AHCVcBLqU5eSjUVBprvNjKeRY5Wd2TWFo=; b=L6t6E3m3r4K4qs/jmb1Fil+Z0oyO+e+OChigjuwiJbjw3/Kw+b6jnNQk/9+hBub6nA KuXFCKa0xOpqidKhMnl6NNnQlj34fHg3/DSu0LmVvRRT+8KbQlK3Pp6WytFWGY2FV8zl cT+pYcSdKqmwYtko7oIGzqfR+3iI5lRC5n+n5cBcHGZ7I5TIUZ4zFNqtMzBGv3E7MUCf Il0fdbUfsZcCZlCe20B+04N9SJy+jgAFFm7Jkmmy2J2s5OOA064zoqhqmg1uvflMWAO3 ryYTzDk2tsMs7vmmORfpu8wldLmsYVAk+DyvNCSVeS7eaBLbdecD2GrFvs3qDYamDdB+ wk5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYmPkDzxneOzGtxl+SJ9kjpGjsuwlCykQSiYyhP95q+EK106zv3 HIArfL8GWRlETJIrn5pVG1H7w7OmUcnFHzI+VDiOXFsK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLHvpjr247fkOHJ9h73lArsnDGOhTk+vXDu2Vp+8ZgnnO21tX8H+hObEx958n9HJ1ZCl/6+0Ptzt8S2BvSfksI=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2a87:: with SMTP id q129mr1485976vkq.90.1587110871307; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158696856575.24074.9062191460091207808@ietfa.amsl.com> <84E0C985-EC91-47B3-B0C2-62819F017C2F@tix.at>
In-Reply-To: <84E0C985-EC91-47B3-B0C2-62819F017C2F@tix.at>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:07:15 +0300
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcXBihNEtm0qQno8uwpYQk12Fcsj0QaUh8fcyM78XN6HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b4182505a3780bd1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XGUqwuiIBuAQhfqiUBmqbjwlWGY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [BULK] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-20
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: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:08:08 -0000

Thank you very much Christoph for addressing my comments.

Have a nice day,

Ines.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:49 AM Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> wrote:

> Hi Ines,
>
> Thanks for your review. According to your review I made the following
> changes to the document which is available now as revision -22:
>
>
> On 15.04.2020, at 18:36, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> Review type: rtgdir - Telechat review
> Requested version for review: 20
> Deadline: 2020-04-15
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
>
> ...
>
>  Nits:
>
> 1- In the Introduction, it would be nice to mention how this draft
> obsoletes
> RFC7674 and point to appendix B when referring obsoleting RFC5575.
>
> For example, This document obsoletes "Dissemination of Flow Specification
> Rules" [RFC5575], whose differences can be found in Appendix B. This
> document
> obsoletes also "Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended
> Community"[RFC7674] due to this document includes.....
>
> - please expand iBGP --> Internal BGP  (iBGP)
>
>
> <--
> Tracked via issue #165: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/165
> Commit mention:
> https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/e8e779a38e35bd53111bf3787b5016503431a173
>
> Introduction modified as suggested:
> ```
>    This document obsoletes "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"
>    [RFC5575], the differences can be found in Appendix B.  This document
>    also obsoletes
>    "Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community" [RFC7674]
>    since it incorporates the encoding of the BGP Flow Specification
>    Redirect Extended Community in Section 7.4.
> ```
>
> iBGP - changed as suggested.
>
> -->
>
> 2- Section 4.2.1.1
>
> in "a -  AND bit:..."
> 2.1 - "the previous term" refers to a component?
> 2.2 -nit: "...unset and and MUST..." => "...unset and MUST..."
>
>
> <--
> Tracked via issue #166: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/166
> Commit mention:
> https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/5a5b90085b5375828e8b758e6ee1a11bc2a59994
>
> ad 2.1.: Actually it is the result of the previous {op, value} pair
> (within a component). Usually components (defined in the next section) are
> a list of muliple {op, value} pairs. The new changed text makes it a little
> clearer:
>
> ```
>    a -  AND bit: If unset, the result of the previous {op, value} pair
>       is logically ORed with the current one.  If set, the operation is
>       a logical AND.
> ```
> -->
>
> 3-nit Section 5: "...this draft specifies..." if it becomes RFC it would be
> nice to read "..this document specifies.."
>
>
> <--
> Tracked via issue #167: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/167
> Commit mention:
> https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/6762310b2f3035b12a82e3bf15f778a15ad969fa
>
> Solved as suggested
> -->
>
> Cheers
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Loibl
> c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at
>
>
>