[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03.txt

Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com> Sun, 11 February 2018 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD10126C22; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 05:44:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.611
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R2RRTHYm8cSU; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 05:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw010.noc.ntt.com (mgw010.noc.ntt.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48061126BFD; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 05:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c0043i0.coe.ntt.com (c0043i0.nc.agilit-hosting.com []) by mgw010.noc.ntt.com (NTT Com MailSV) with ESMTP id 2745257A00AA; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:44:09 +0900 (JST)
Received: from C0041I0.coe.ntt.com ( by c0043i0.coe.ntt.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:44:08 +0900
Received: from C0561I0.coe.ntt.com ([]) by C0041I0.coe.ntt.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:44:08 +0900
From: Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
To: "'rtg-ads@ietf.org'" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "'rtg-dir@ietf.org'" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "'draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp.all@ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp.all@ietf.org>, "'bess@ietf.org'" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03.txt
Thread-Index: AdOjPkKgDB07/qgGQl6iJAOSZko1xw==
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:44:08 +0000
Message-ID: <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A86B3ED2B@C0561I0.coe.ntt.com>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
x-ccmail-original-to: rtg-ads@ietf.org
x-ccmail-original-cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp.all@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Xn1QqPxuctDYqYb3XSLMiLmiX34>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 13:44:17 -0000


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, and sometimes on special request. 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-bess-fat-pw-bgp-03.txt
 Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
 Review Date: February 11th, 2018
 IETF LC End Date: Not known
 Intended Status: Standard Track

No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

This document defines protocol extensions for synchronizing flow label states among PEs when using BGP-based signaling procedures.
The protocol extensions use the principles in RFC6391, which is used in LDP-based signaling procedures.
The protocol extensions are straight-forward. The document is easy to read and understand.

Major Issues:

Minor Issues:

1) In page 6, 3rd paragraph,
"with R = 0 NUST NOT include a ..."
Here, "NUST" should be "MUST".

Tomonori Takeda