Hi, I looked at the 08 version and the major issues are addressed. What about minor issue number 3? Roni Even > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:23 PM > To: Roni Even > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > gen-art@xxxxxxxx; IETF-Discussion list > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07 > > Hi Roni, > > On Sep 7, 2011, at 4:37 , Roni Even wrote: > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Thanks! > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > Review Date: 2011-9-7 > > IETF LC End Date: 2011-9-27 > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an informational > RFC. > > > > Major issues: > > > > The IANA considerations section says: > > "the values already allocated are in Table 1 of Section 4. The > allocation policy for new entries up to and including value 127 is > "Standards Action". The allocation policy for values 128 through 251 > is "First Come First Served". The values from 252 through 255 are for > "Experimental Use"." > > Standards Action will be changed to Expert Review. > > > Yet this is document is intended for Informational status which > contradict the standard action. This is also true for the second > registry defined. > > > > Is this document really an Informational one? > > My only comment is that it is not Historic. > > > Minor issues: > > > > 1. In section 1.2.2 "Since "traditional" Layer 2 VPNs (i.e., > real Frame Relay circuits connecting sites) are indistinguishable from > tunnel-based VPNs from the customer's point-of-view, migrating from > one to the other raises few issues." What are the few issues? > > A subtlety: "few issues" means not many, not deep; it's a careful way > of saying, "just about no issues". "A few issues" would require > elaboration. > > > 2. In section 4 "L2VPN TLVs can be added to extend the > information carried in the NLRI, using the format shown in Figure 2". > How is the TLV carried in the NLRI, in which field, section 4.1 only > talk about the structure of the TLV. > > I'll take the figure from 3.2.2 of RFC 4761 and show where the TLVs go. > > > 3. Section 4.2 refers to section 4 but I am not sure where this > mechanism in section 4 is. > > Will clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > 1. Section 3.1 is called network topology but the whole text is > an example of a network topology. Maybe the title should be "Example of > a network toplogy". > > Sure. > > > 2. Section 5 starts with "As defined so far in the document .." > But the using IP only is already discussed in previous sections. > > Do you have a suggestion for rewording? > > Thanks, > Kireeti. > > > > > > > > <ATT00001..txt> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf