[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-09
Stig Venaas via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 14 April 2023 17:08 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90A5C1522D3; Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stig Venaas via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability.all@ietf.org, lsvr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 10.0.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <168149208987.47600.2673051175895320022@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:08:09 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/h6jRijyOK52HyC3rJgdKYQD54TU>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-09
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 14 Apr 2023 17:08:09 -0000
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? 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. 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".
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-lsvr-… Stig Venaas via Datatracker
- [RTG-DIR]Re: [Lsvr] Rtgdir early review of draft-… Dongjie (Jimmy)