Thank you very much Christoph for addressing my comments.
Have a nice day,
Ines.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:49 AM Christoph Loibl <c@xxxxxx> wrote:
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
-->CheersChristoph
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
