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

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Fri, 17 April 2020 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F003A0FC9; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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=tix.at
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 d4JLap4Wcnvu; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fbsd.host (mail.fbsd.host [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (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 70B413A0FC4; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; s=rev1; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type :Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yV3ICeLj5vrJjWVG9pVTOfuoc9FaeYpkNk1I9+E7wSY=; b=qnFw0PAeUs1f6ntRTJYWMHwe9L +d68/4LxSbYcLtuAAdqUgQuEnMNxMFJ3/j+N6C3j6mxHSLQNRzbhqPeW2VXlbMNWORcekScOF4Oqm eThRUnVvxTXdLuVeqApZJm0zvBB/2HjBJW5wpHnUu7NkoBBAFdymRqbIR9FCVdpe/SDAdwwwg1H02 jg8mBF/hqpiml+IjOHYqwsJWZ9CIfZADfKX8zZTV46WTLITQC7MkPCSsnWMuwbdaBE+3Q0rmAj0Y6 8svVnV4yf55qhzG1bbBIzr18tcJKYTi7GjYecrQLMvnw9ODe4/c+4OXd+kfJ481uExvbo2YXLiMID qrZ2tNIA==;
Received: from 213-225-13-127.nat.highway.a1.net ([213.225.13.127] helo=[192.168.88.217]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1jPLkk-0001tJ-5C; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:49:35 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <84E0C985-EC91-47B3-B0C2-62819F017C2F@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DBBB7276-1033-4180-8DA1-0706505170CA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:49:32 +0200
In-Reply-To: <158696856575.24074.9062191460091207808@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis.all@ietf.org
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
References: <158696856575.24074.9062191460091207808@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
X-Scanned-By: primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:49:34 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/5E8xZT29sJ3kpk3fAXoexqP7M4g>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [BULK] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-20
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 07:49:40 -0000

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