Re: [Idr] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with COMMENT)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Barry: 

Thank you for the editorial comments on this draft. 

 I'm sorry I missed the "i.e." in the edits.  Of course it should be "e.g." 

We'll address the remainder in the next draft. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 2:28 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jie Dong; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All of this is editorial:

— Abstract —

   Other applications (ie. centralized control of traffic in a SDN or
   NFV context) are also possible.

I don’t think you mean “i.e.” here, but “e.g.”  I would avoid the Latin (for exactly this reason: many people don’t understand it and misuse it) and say, “Other applications, such as centralized control of traffic in an SDN or NFV context, are also possible.”

— Section 1 —

   Modern IP routers contain both the capability to forward traffic
   according to IP prefixes as well as to classify, shape, rate limit,
   filter, or redirect packets based on administratively defined

The two things that come after “both” have to be parallel, and they’re not. 
This will read better without the word “both”, like this:

NEW
   Modern IP routers have the capabilities to forward traffic
   according to IP prefixes and to classify, shape, rate limit,
   filter, or redirect packets based on administratively defined END

   Section 4 of this document defines a general procedure to encode Flow
   Specification for aggregated traffic flows so that they can be
   distributed as a BGP [RFC4271] NLRI.

I think this has to say “Flow Specifications”, plural, yes?  That matches “they”.

   automated systems are used, care should be taken to ensure their
   correctness as well as the limitations of the systems that receive
   and process the advertised Flow Specifications

How does “as well as the limitations...” fit into the sentence?  There seems to be something missing here.

— Section 3 —

   prefix as well as community matching and manipulation, must apply to
   the Flow Specification defined NLRI-type

I can’t tell whether “Flow Specification defined” is meant to be a compound modifier for “NLRI-type” (in which case the former needs hyphens and the latter does not), or this is meant to describe a defined NLRI tyoe called “Flow Specification”.  I think you mean the latter.  Can you re-word this or re-punctuate it to make it clear?

— Section 5 —

   In order to achieve this goal, this document specifies two
   application specific NLRI identifiers that provide traffic filters,
   and a set of actions encoding in BGP Extended Communities.  The two
   application specific NLRI identifiers are:

Both instances of “application-specific” should be hyphenated.

— Section 6 —

   By default a Flow Specification NLRI MUST be validated such that it
   is considered feasible if and only if all of the below is true:

Make it “are true”.

      c) There are no more specific unicast routes

Hyphenate “more-specific” to distinguish it from “there are no more (specific unicast routes)”.

   By originator of a BGP route, we mean either the address of the

But nothing else says “originator of a BGP route”.  (b) does say “originator of the best-match unicast route”... is that what you mean here?  Can you make this match up so it’s clearer?

On thinking more about this text, I think maybe putting quotation marks around “originator” in the quoted sentence is all that’s needed.

   Specification information that conveys a more or equally specific
   destination prefix.

This needs awkward hyphenation ti be correct.  I suggest avoiding that by saying, “Specification information that conveys a destination prefix that is more or equally specific.”

   Thus, as long as there are no more specific
   unicast routes, received from a different neighboring AS, which would
   be affected by that Flow Specification.

As above, hyphenate “more-specific”.  And then fix the sentence, as it doesn’t appear to be a complete sentence.

— Section 7 —

   treated as interfering Traffic filtering actions (see below).

Please capitalize “Filtering Actions”, to be consistent.

   Some Traffic Filtering Actions may interfere with each other even
   contradict.

Make it “may interfere with or even contradict each other.”

— Section 7.7 —

   behaviour (ie. match - replace - delete communities on administrative
   boundaries).

I can’t understand what’s in the parentheses, nor even whether “i.e.” is correct or it should be “e.g.”.

— Section 9 —

   statistics facilities.  While this is an implementation specific

Hyphenate “implementation-specific”.

— Section 12 —

   This may stress the receiving systems, exceed their
   maximum capacity or may lead to unwanted Traffic Filtering Actions
   being applied to flows.

Change “capacity or may lead” to “capacity, or lead” — the “may” is already there at the start of the sentence, and the Oxford comma helps readability here.