Hi Chongfeng, Jia, I believe that version -06 had the changes to align with the TEAS terminology - correct? This review is closed. Thanks, Acee > On Dec 14, 2023, at 2:29 AM, Hejia (Jia) <hejia=40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Chongfeng, > Thanks for your reply. Your reply looks reasonable. > B.R. > Jia > 发件人: Chongfeng Xie [mailto:chongfeng.xie@xxxxxxxxxxx] > 发送时间: 2023年12月12日 13:14 > 收件人: Hejia (Jia) <hejia@xxxxxxxxxx>; rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx > 抄送: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all@xxxxxxxx>; last-call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>; lsr <lsr@xxxxxxxx> > 主题: Re: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Hi Jia, > Thanks for the review comments. > I see your major comment is about the terminology alignment, as replied to Daniele, we will follow the decision in TEAS to update the terminologies in next revision. > Please see some replies to the minor issues inline: > From: He Jia via Datatracker > Date: 2023-12-11 16:09 > To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx > CC: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt.all; last-call; lsr > Subject: [Lsr] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Reviewer: He Jia > Review result: Not Ready > 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 > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/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-lsr-isis-sr-vtn-mt-05 > Reviewer: Jia He > Review Date: December 10, 2023 > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > Intended Status: Informational > Summary: > I have read the review comments from Daniele about the concept of enhanced VPN, > and the relationship with other existing terms. I agree with his suggestion to > follow the discussion and align the draft with the output. In addition, some > minor issues and also nits are found out as follows and should be considered > prior to publication. > Minor Issues: > 1、In Section 1, it is said "Segment Identifiers (SIDs) can be used to represent > both the topological instructions and the set of network resources allocated by > network nodes to a VTN." Is it "allocated by network nodes" or "allocated to > network nodes"? If it is "network resources allocated by network nodes", why > not "allocated by centralized controllers" as well? If it is "network resources > allocated to network nodes" which are assocated with a VTN, why not " allocated > to network links" as well? Is there any special consideration by saying > "network nodes" only here? > [Chongfeng]： The description is a little bit confusing, actually it should be "network resources of the network nodes and links which are allocated to a VTN/NRP". We will update it in next revision. > 2、In Section 4, "For SRv6 data plane, the SRv6 SIDs associated with the same > VTN can be used together to build SRv6 paths with the topological and resource > constraints of the VTN taken into consideration." Is "SRv6 Locator" missing? > [Chongfeng] SRv6 Locator is the covering prefix part of the SRv6 SIDs. In SRv6 segment list, the SRv6 SIDs are used to indicate the forwarding path and the set of resources used for packet processing. So the description is correct. > Nits: > 1、Section 2, TLV 223 (MT IS Neighbor Attribute) is defined in RFC 5311, which > is not referenced in the draft. 2、Section 1, Paragraph 3, last sentence, > s/...need to be distributed using control plane/...need to be distributed using > a control plane 3、Section 2, Paragraph 1, last sentecne, s/MT-ID could be used > as the identifier of VTN in control plane./MT-ID could be used as the > identifier of VTN in the control plane. 4、Section 2, "IS-IS Multi-Topology > [RFC5120]" and "IS-IS Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) [RFC5120]" are both used in > the draft. It is suggested to keep consistent throughout the draft. > [Chongfeng] Thanks for catching the nits, we will resolve them in next revision. > Best regards, > Chongfeng > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
