Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15.txt

[Alexander Azimov <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mach,

Thank you for your comments, all nits are already applied.

But it proved that different authors have a different reading of your
comment related to section 6:

> Section 6.
> It does not specify how a speaker handle a route with OTC attribute but
> the sender's role is unknown.

Are you speaking about the OTC processing in case of the absence of a
locally configured role?
Or does it about receiving OTC attribute from a neighbor that doesn't
participate in the role negotiation?

чт, 13 мая 2021 г. в 09:50, Mach Chen <[e-mail]>:

> Hello
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft.
> ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy /
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication
> to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the
> draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early
> review depends on the stage that the document has reached.
>
> As this document has been sent to IESG for publication, my focus for the
> review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published.
> Please consider my comments along with the other last call comments.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15.txt
> Reviewer: Mach Chen
> Review Date: 2021/05/13
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits and minor
> concerns that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
>
> Comments:
>
> Section 6.
> It does not specify how a speaker handle a route with OTC attribute but
> the sender's role is unknown.
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Section 2.
> s/ their customers/its customers
>
> Section 3.
> s/Allowed Role values/Allowed Roles
>
> Section 4.
> It's better to update the table as follows:
>
>                       +-------+---------------------+
>                       | Value | Role name           |
>                       +-------+---------------------+
>                       |   0   | Sender is Provider  |
>                       |   1   | Sender is RS        |
>                       |   2   | Sender is RS-client |
>                       |   3   | Sender is Customer  |
>                       |   4   | Sender is Peer      |
>                       | 5-255  | Reserved      |
>                       +-------+---------------------+
>
> Section 5.
> OLD:
> "If the role of the receiving speaker for the eBGP session in
>    consideration is included in Table 1 and the observed Role pair is
>    not in the above table,"
> NEW:
>
> "If the observed Role pair is not in the above table,"
>
> IMHO, it's redundant to include "If the role of the receiving speaker for
> the eBGP session in consideration is included in Table 1", just keep the
> second half of the sentence is enough.
>
> Section 5.1
>
> s/send a send a/send a, there is a redundant "send a".
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>


-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Azimov