Hi Mallory, Thanks for your review. I've incorporated your comments in the -16 version. > On Dec 27, 2024, at 11:34 AM, Mallory Knodel via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Mallory Knodel > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-15 > Reviewer: Mallory Knodel > Review Date: 2024-12-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2024-12-25 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This is a clear and concise document describing the why and how of > link-state vector routing BGP extensions in Clos or Fat-Tree data centre > topologies. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: This document is well written and I've only suggested > a few optional ways to improve readability that the authors might consider: > > * Abstract: The document is intended to _be_[provide] a simplified guide for > the deployment of BGP-SPF extensions. Alternatively one could "provide > simplified guidance..." Good suggestion. > > * Recommended reading section should have all acronyms expanded, especially > since it is a text that exists to help point the reader towards supporting and > additional resources, this section should be as accessible as possible. I expanded all of these except BGP-SPF, OSPF, and BGP. BGP-SPF was previously expanded and BGP and OSPF are well-known. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list > > * In most places where a reference appears mid-sentence, it would be more > readable without losing fidelity to place the reference at the end of the > sentence, eg: "The BGP-SPF modifications allow BGP to overcome these > limitations. Furthermore, using the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability > Information (NLRI) format [RFC9552] allows the BGP-SPF data to be advertised > for nodes, links, and prefixes in the BGP routing domain and used for SPF > computations \\suggest placing [RFC9552] citation here. This is a suggestion > to be considered throughout the text. I moved two references but the others were referred to directly, adjacent to the term or concept which was explained, in sentences including more than one term or concept. > > * Section 3, "Data Center" would be more consistent with the rest of the > document if it appeared lowercase here. Fixed. > > * Final paragraph Section 5.2.1. it is unclear why the parenthetical exists > when the information seems relevant to include in the sentence without > parenthesis: "In these topologies, fabric nodes below the first tier (using > [RFC7938] hierarchy) will establish BGP multi-hop sessions with the > controllers." I've changed this - hopefully it is clearer. > > * Choose an acronym convention: TOR vs ToR. I've used "ToR" consistently. > > * Section 5.5.2. IGP is not expanded. Expanded even though it is asterisked in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list Even I forget sometimes if the "I" is for "Interior" or "Internal" - and I'm the LSR co-chair ;^) Thanks Again, Acee > > Thanks for this excellent work. > > -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
