Hi Joel,
Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 7:32 PM Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Has Nits
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-idr-rfc7752bis-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 26-Oct-2022
IETF LC End Date: N/A
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should
be considered prior to publication.
Comments:
Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
Include anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding your
review.
Major Issues:
None
Minor Issues:
None
Nits:
At the end of the first paragraph of section 4, could we add a sentence
saying "the BGP-LS attributes appear within the corresponding new BGP NLRI"
or similar? While that is explained later in section 4, the length of the
section means that a new reader is left wondering for quite some time.
KT> The BGP-LS Attribute TLVs do not appear within the NLRI. Sec 4.2 introduces BGP-LS NLRIs and indicates that they are carried within the MP_REACH/UNREACH. Further Sec 4.3 introduces the BGP-LS Attribute and indicates that they are carried as part of the BGP update along with the Link State NLRIs (and other attributes). Perhaps we can clarify a bit upfront that the new NLRI types are carried in the MP_REACH/UNREACH?
Section 4.1 has the paragraph:
All TLVs within the NLRI that are not specified as mandatory are
considered optional. All TLVs within the BGP-LS Attribute are
considered optional unless specified otherwise.
As far as I can tell, those two sentences are saying, about two different
aspects of the encoding, the same thing. But they say it in different ways.
If there is some subtle difference in meaning taht is intended, please
clarify. If the meaning is indeed the same, could we use parallel
construction to avoid readers thinking there is a difference?
KT> They are talking about two different "containers" - the NLRI and the BGP-LS Attribute. The "default" is different for them.
Thanks,
Ketan
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
