IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR]Re: [Lsvr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-09

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Tue, 22 October 2024 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
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 D104DC18DBAD; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ALSC_0KIN29b; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A55C18DB97; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 02:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XXmMQ58hcz6K6WF; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:59:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.161.198]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22BCD140C72; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:01:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemf100008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.138) by lhrpeml500006.china.huawei.com (7.191.161.198) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:01:29 +0100
Received: from kwepemf100006.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.220) by dggpemf100008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:01:27 +0800
Received: from kwepemf100006.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.220]) by kwepemf100006.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.220]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:01:26 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsvr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-09
Thread-Index: AQHZbvPKzOmIM77y1ka7KFUeCq+kNrKVwdew
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:01:26 +0000
Message-ID: <b5b7371735614e189410b105d04fde6d@huawei.com>
References: <168149208987.47600.2673051175895320022@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <168149208987.47600.2673051175895320022@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.153.180.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: 2XWZL2RWBPO5ZAUC3LRXKURY7WELPNFD
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2XWZL2RWBPO5ZAUC3LRXKURY7WELPNFD
X-MailFrom: jie.dong@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability.all@ietf.org>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Re: [Lsvr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-09
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/NTSCHTbQ7WTW292tmx-TvsGTNGY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Stig, 

Thanks again for the review comments on version -09. Version -13 has just been uploaded which incorporated your comments. 

Please find the responses inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsvr <lsvr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stig Venaas via Datatracker
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2023 1:08 AM
> To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability.all@ietf.org; lsvr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsvr] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-09
> 
> Reviewer: Stig Venaas
> Review result: Ready
> 
> The draft is in good shape. It is easy to read. There is one technical point I want
> to raise, but not sure if anything needs to change. There are a couple of minor
> grammatical issues.
> 
> In section 4 it says
> 
>    Within a Data Center, servers are commonly interconnected the CLOS
>    topology [CLOS].  The CLOS topology is fully non-blocking and the
>    topology is realized using Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP).  In a CLOS
>    topology, the minimum number of parallel paths between two servers is
>    determined by the width of a tier-1 stage as shown in the figure 1.
> 
> Regarding number of parallel paths, isn't the the width of tier-2 a factor as
> well?

The text has been updated with: 

"In a Clos topology, the minimum number of parallel paths in each tier is determined by the width of the stage as shown in the figure 1."


> 
> I found two grammar issues. One is in this first sentence. A word or two need
> to be added to make it a complete sentence.

Thanks for catching the grammar issues. This sentence has been updated with:

" Within a Data Center, servers are commonly interconnected using the Clos topology [Clos]."


> 
> In section 5 it says:
> 
>    In order to simplify layer-3 routing and operations [RFC7938], many
>    data centers use BGP as a routing protocol to create both an underlay
>    and overlay network for their CLOS Topologies.
> 
> "an" should be added in the last sentence so that it says "both an underlay and
> an overlay".

"an" has been added to this sentence. 

Best regards,
Jie (on behalf of coauthors)

> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> Lsvr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status