Hi Peter, Thank you for the draft review. I have fixed the nits in the draft. More comments inlined. #Keyur On 6/5/14 11:38 AM, "Peter Yee" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> 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> > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you >may receive. > >Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-enhanced-route-refresh-06 >Reviewer: Peter Yee >Review Date: June-04-2014 >IETF LC End Date: June-03-2014 >IESG Telechat date: June-12-2014 > >This review is a couple of days late owing to my being unavailable during >most of the review period. > >Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards >Track >RFC, but has some nits that should be fixed before publication. [Ready >with >nits.] > >No major complaints with this draft -- just a few consistency nits and a >couple of questions. > >Questions: > >Page 3, Section 3.2: the set of available values is enumerated. Is the >encoding format of these values understood from other context? Older BGP >specifications seem to give guidance such as "unsigned integer" at a >minimum. #Keyur: Yes. > >Page 3, Section 3.2, table of values: the value is a "should" in RFC 2918. >That RFC indicated that it was to be ignored by recipients. Now that >values >will actually matter, is there any concern about senders that don't abide >by >the "should" clause in RFC 2918? #Keyur: Yes. This functionality is controlled using BGP capabilities. > >Page 4, 1st full paragraph, 3rd sentence: the behavior for receipt of a >BoRR >is described. What happens if an EoRR is somehow received prior to >receipt >of a BoRR? Is it just ignored? Or should an error notification be >returned? #Keyur: It would be a no-op operation. 07 version of draft covers it. Best Regards, Keyur > >Nits: > >Page 3, Section 4, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "comprise of both, >the" to "comprise both the". > >Page 4, 1st partial paragraph: change "ADJ-RIB-Out" to "Adj-RIB-Out" for >consistency. > >Page 4, 1st full paragraph, 3rd sentence: change "anytime" to "any time". > >Page 4, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: use upper/lower case consistently for >the term 'EoR'. RFC 4724 does not give specific guidance, but the spelled >out form would tend to indicate that 'EoR' is preferred. > >Page 5, Section 6, table: value 255 is shown reserved. This clashes with >the text in Section 3.2 which indicates all values outside of 0 - 2 are >reserved. > >Page 5, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "need" to "needs". > >Page 7, authors' addresses: drop "95124" from both addresses. > >