Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-16.txt

Hi John,

Thanks for the explanation, it addressed my comments.

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-dir [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John G. Scudder
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2014 2:56 AM
> To: Mach Chen
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-error-handling@tools.ietf.org;
> rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Idr] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-16.txt
> 
> Chris Hall kindly pointed out to me that RFC 5549 only relates to the MP-BGP
> encoding and NOT the legacy NEXT_HOP attribute, and thus my last change was
> in error. I've reverted that change and will post it as -18. (The two editorial
> changes are still there.) Section 7.11 did already capture the "4 or 16" point for
> MP_REACH_NLRI, so no change needed there.
> 
> Thanks, Chris!
> 
> --John
> 
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:37 AM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mach,
> >
> > Thanks for your review and comments. I will make the changes and issue a new
> version. Good catch on the RFC 5549 issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --John
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:51 AM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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. 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-error-handling-16.txt
> >> Reviewer: Mach Chen
> >> Review Date: Nov. 12, 2014
> >> Intended Status: Standards Track
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> This document is well written and easy to understand. I found some nits and
> one minor issue that I think should be resolved before publication.
> >>
> >> Comments:
> >> None.
> >>
> >> Major Issues:
> >> No major issues found.
> >>
> >> Minor Issues:
> >> Section 7.3
> >> "The attribute is considered malformed if its length is not 4 [RFC4271]."
> >>
> >> If only according to RFC4271, this is the case, but seems that RFC5549 allows
> that the length of Nexthop attribute can be either 4 or 16.
> >>
> >> Nits:
> >> Section 2.
> >> s/to handling/to handle
> >>
> >> in the last bullet of the 4 approaches.
> >> s/must not/MUST NOT
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Mach
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr