Hi Med, Thanks for considering my comments, I am OK with your resolution. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 8:21 PM > To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>; rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap.all@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-04 > > Hi Mach, > > Thank you for the review. The changes to address the review can be tracked at: > https://tinyurl.com/sap-latest > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> De la part de Mach Chen > > Envoyé : jeudi 12 mai 2022 11:11 À : rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc : > > draft-ietf-opsawg-sap.all@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx; last- > > call@xxxxxxxx Objet : [Last-Call] RtgDir Last Call review: > > draft-ietf-opsawg- > > sap-04 > > > > Hello, > > > > 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-opsawg-sap-04 > > Reviewer: Mach Chen > > Review Date: 2022/05/15 > > IETF LC End Date: > > Intended Status: Standards Track > > > > Summary: > > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be > > resolved before publication. > > > > Major Issues: > > None > > > > Minor Issues: > > 1. Section 2, the definition of Service Attachment Point (SAP) is hard > > to understand here, the definition depends on the definition of > > "service's endpoint" and "TP" that is not defined in the document or > > lack of references(if defined in other documents). > > More text needed here and it's better to make it consistent with the > > definition in other places (e.g., Introduction section). > > [Med] Updated the text to: > > NEW: > Service Attachment Points (SAPs): An abstraction of the network > reference points (e.g., PE side of an AC) where network services > can be delivered and/or being delivered to customers. > > > > > 2. Section 3, > > " The > > model is also used to retrieve the network points where a service > > is > > being delivered to customers." > > What's the meaning of the "network points" here? Is it a node, link, > > interface or something else, some clarification needed here, or using > > a more specific and well-known term here. > > > > [Med] An example was added to updated definition provided above. > > > 3. Section 4, " Also, the SAP is not a tunnel termination point > > (TTP) (Section 3.6 of > > [RFC8795]) nor a link." Why need to state this here, maybe it's > > better to move it to the place of the definition of "SAP". > > [Med] We prefer to maintain it here as this section is about positioning the > model vs. existing models. > > > > > 4. identity basic-connectivity { > > base vpn-common:service-type; > > description > > "Basic IP connectivity. This is, for example, a plain > > connectivity offered to Enterprises over a dedicated > > or shared MPLS infrastructure."; Since it's a "IP > > connectivity", why emphasize that it is over an "MPLS" > > infrastructure? > > > > [Med] That was just an example. > > > Nits: > > 1. Abstract section, the second sentence of paragraph, s/ The Service > > Attachment Points/SAPs > > [Med] OK > > > 2. Section 1, the last 3rd para, > > it's better to add references when mention L2VPN and L3VPN > > [Med] Added a pointer to RFC4026. > > > 3. > > Section 3, suggest to add a reference to EVPN. > > [Med] Several EVPN-related are provided in Section 5 with explicit association > with the EVPN flavor. > > > 4. Section 5, suggest to add the references to LAG, IRB. > > [Med] OK > > > 5. identity virtual-network, suggest to copy the description of > > "Virtual Network" from RFC 8453. > > [Med] Went with the following: > > OLD: > "Virtual network."; > NEW: > "Virtual network. Refers to a logical network instance > that is built over a physical network."; > > > 6. It's better to add more text to the description of identity phy, > > loopback, lag and irb. > > [Med] These are well-known and well-established. I don't think we need to say > much here, but will see. Thanks. > > > > > Best regards, > > Mach > > > > -- > > last-call mailing list > > last-call@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > > ________________________________________________________________ > _________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou > copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le > signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute > responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or > copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this > message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
