IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rift] AD review for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13

wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn Wed, 17 April 2024 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0896AC151062; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ORI19O8dS3AJ; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B79EBC14F70D; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4VK26J4dmbz8XrS7; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:36:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxlzmapp07.zte.com.cn ([10.5.230.251]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 43H0aMpV010017; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:36:22 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (szxlzmapp07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid13; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:36:23 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:36:23 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b09661f1987ffffffffeb3-aeadb
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240417083623486vjlBHK3VPziqvJQwswqab@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <B0E22A10-0E9A-4D82-9FE2-DF2D9AF40F7B@juniper.net>
References: MW5PR13MB54850078CDC745BEE9B42A07D2082@MW5PR13MB5485.namprd13.prod.outlook.com, B0E22A10-0E9A-4D82-9FE2-DF2D9AF40F7B@juniper.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
To: prz@juniper.net, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com
Cc: draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org, rift-chairs@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 43H0aMpV010017
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 661F19A8.001/4VK26J4dmbz8XrS7
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/FGQyTuL_mhu93o77_tVYT7MsUUw>
Subject: Re: [Rift] AD review for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:37:06 -0000

hi, 
Will update accordingly.
Thank you very much

Best Regards,


Yuehua Wei








Original


From: AntoniPrzygienda <prz@juniper.net>
To: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>;
Cc: draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org <draft-ietf-rift-applicability@ietf.org>;rift-chairs@ietf.org <rift-chairs@ietf.org>;rift@ietf.org <rift@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年04月17日 02:05
Subject: Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rift-applicability-13


Jim, thanks for careful reading. All sounds minor and reasonable  
On 16 Apr 2024, at 17:58, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> wrote:
 

 
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
 
 


Dear Authors,
 
Thank you for the latest version of this document. I have some further comments/corrections before I move the document forward. Please review and publish a new version as soon as possible:
 
171     Section 4.2.3.8 "Southbound Default Route Origination" of RIFT
 
Jim> This is an incorrect reference. It should be Section 6.3.8 (v-21 of the RIFT spec). Please correct the reference.
 
215     A spine node has only information necessary for its level, which is
216     all destinations south of the node based on SPF calculation, default
217     route, and potential disaggregated routes.
 
Jim> Change ‘potential’ to ‘potentially’ above.
 
225     *  Minimal routes/info on Top-of-Rack (ToR) switches, aka leaf nodes
 
Jim> Change ‘routes/info’ to ‘routes/information’ above.
 
1045  5.8.  Mobile Edge and Anycast
 
1047    When a physical or a virtual node changes its point of attachement in
 
Jim> Correct typo ‘attachement’ above.
 
1068    Section 4.3.3.  "Mobility" of [RIFT] specifies an hybrid method that
 
Jim> Above reference is incorrect. Section 6.8.4 of [RIFT] is the correct reference. Please correct it.
 
1105    the point of attachement changes.  This way, it is possible to
 
Jim> Correct typo above.
 
1109    of its points of attachement.
 
Jim> Correct typo above.
 
1111  5.9.  IPv4 over IPv6
 
1115    mechanisms and then V4 can use V6 nexthops analogous to [RFC8950].
 
Jim> Replace ‘nexthops’ with ‘next-hops’
 
1408  5.17.  Key Management
 
1410    As outlined in Section "Security Considerations" of [RIFT], either a
 
Jim> Please update reference to ‘Section 9 “Security Considerations” of [RIFT]’.
 
Thanks!
 
Jim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email