Re: [Last-Call] [BULK] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-20

[Christoph Loibl <c@xxxxxx>]

Hi Ines,

Thanks for your review. According to your review I made the following changes to the document which is available now as revision -22:

On 15.04.2020, at 18:36, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Nits

Review type: rtgdir - Telechat review
Requested version for review: 20
Deadline: 2020-04-15
Reviewer: Ines Robles

...

 Nits:

1- In the Introduction, it would be nice to mention how this draft obsoletes
RFC7674 and point to appendix B when referring obsoleting RFC5575.

For example, This document obsoletes "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules" [RFC5575], whose differences can be found in Appendix B. This document
obsoletes also "Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended
Community"[RFC7674] due to this document includes.....

- please expand iBGP --> Internal BGP  (iBGP)

<-- 
Tracked via issue #165: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/165
Commit mention: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/e8e779a38e35bd53111bf3787b5016503431a173

Introduction modified as suggested:
```
   This document obsoletes "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"
   [RFC5575], the differences can be found in Appendix B.  This document
   also obsoletes
   "Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community" [RFC7674]
   since it incorporates the encoding of the BGP Flow Specification
   Redirect Extended Community in Section 7.4.
```

iBGP - changed as suggested.

-->

2- Section 4.2.1.1

in "a -  AND bit:..."
2.1 - "the previous term" refers to a component?
2.2 -nit: "...unset and and MUST..." => "...unset and MUST..."

<-- 
Tracked via issue #166: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/166
Commit mention: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/5a5b90085b5375828e8b758e6ee1a11bc2a59994

ad 2.1.: Actually it is the result of the previous {op, value} pair (within a component). Usually components (defined in the next section) are a list of muliple {op, value} pairs. The new changed text makes it a little clearer:

```
   a -  AND bit: If unset, the result of the previous {op, value} pair
      is logically ORed with the current one.  If set, the operation is
      a logical AND.  
```
-->

3-nit Section 5: "...this draft specifies..." if it becomes RFC it would be
nice to read "..this document specifies.."

<-- 
Tracked via issue #167: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/issues/167
Commit mention: https://github.com/stoffi92/rfc5575bis/commit/6762310b2f3035b12a82e3bf15f778a15ad969fa

Solved as suggested
-->

Cheers

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@xxxxxx | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call