Subject: [bess] wglc review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 13:52:29 +0200

Authors, wg and chairs,

I've read this document and think it is useful, and that we are almost
ready to request publication.

A couple of nits

0. The nits tool gives errors on 54 lines that are too long

1. The file name is still draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-03, while
    updating after wglc is should be posted as draft-ietf-bess-virtual-
    subnet-03.

2. The document has 7 authors, please make sure that all of them meets
    the criterium that the RFC Editor sent out some weeks ago.

"The intent of the author list in the document header and the Authors
  Addresses space in an RFC is to indicate who is responsible for the
  technical content of the document."

3. Does "across" in the abstract mean "within" or "between"?

4. The concept "L3VPN-based" is used at a number of places ...

5. The nits tool give warnings of "26 instances of lines with
    non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses".

6. First paragraph on page 12 says "both ingress and egress PE routers
    MUST NOT decrement the TTL",
    The meaning is unclear, can one of them do it or neither?

7. Do we need to consider IPv6?

Other than this I think this very useful document is ready to be
progressed.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 08:06:35 -0400

Loa,

One small nit with your review - renaming a draft because the WG name
changed resets the numbering to -00, so the next revision will be
draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-00. However, the replaced-by information in
the datatracker will make the progression clear.

Cheers,
Andy

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 15:33:27 +0200

Andy,

Yes you Are right, I forgot to change the revision number. 

/Loa

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 May 2015, at 14:06, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Loa,
> 
> One small nit with your review - renaming a draft because the WG name changed resets the numbering to -00, so the next revision will be draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-00. However, the replaced-by information in the datatracker will make the progression clear.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
>

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 06:36:54 +0000

Hi Loa,

Thanks a lot for your review. Please see my response inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BESS [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 7:52 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [bess] wglc review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet
> 
> Authors, wg and chairs,
> 
> I've read this document and think it is useful, and that we are almost ready to
> request publication.
> 
> A couple of nits
> 

Will fix it.

>     updating after wglc is should be posted as draft-ietf-bess-virtual-

Will post it as draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-00 when updating.

>   technical content of the document."

Will fix it.

> 3. Does "across" in the abstract mean "within" or "between"?

It means "between". Will replace it with "between".
 
> 4. The concept "L3VPN-based" is used at a number of places ...

Will fix it.

>     non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses".

Will fix it by using IPv4 addresses belonging to 10.0.0.0/8

>     The meaning is unclear, can one of them do it or neither?

Is it OK to say "...neither ingress nor egress PE routers SHOULD decrement the TTL..."

> 7. Do we need to consider IPv6?

IPv6 has been considered in this doc although the examples are IPv4-based. See section 3.3 to 3.8. 

> Other than this I think this very useful document is ready to be progressed.

Thanks again for your review.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 10:51:32 +0200

Xiaohu,

Tnx for the prompt reply (I've snipped everything we agreed on)

> Is it OK to say "...neither ingress nor egress PE routers SHOULD decrement the TTL..."

Yes that is fine with me.

> IPv6 has been considered in this doc although the examples are IPv4-based. See section 3.3 to 3.8.

Yes - but it is rather implicit, can you make it explicit. I agree that
both VRRP and ND carries a strong tradition from IPv6, but maybe one
sentence in the Introduction explaining that the document is also
applicable to IPv6 would be good.

/Loa

--

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:00:29 -0400

Just a minor point:

> Will fix it by using IPv4 addresses belonging to 10.0.0.0/8

It may be more appropriate to use something like 192.0.2.0/24 per 
RFC5737 rather than RFC1918 space.

-Benson

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 01:14:22 +0000

Hi Benson,

Thanks for your comment.

I just noticed the following text in RFC5737:

   This document describes three IPv4 address blocks that are provided
   for use in documentation.  The use of designated address ranges for
   documentation and examples reduces the likelihood of conflicts and
   confusion arising from the use of addresses assigned for some other
   purpose.

   [RFC1166] reserves the first of the three address blocks,
   192.0.2.0/24.  The other two address blocks have recently been
   allocated for this purpose, primarily to ease the writing of examples
   involving addresses from multiple networks.

   Other documentation ranges have been defined in the IETF, including
   the IPv6 documentation prefix [RFC3849] and example domain names
   [RFC2606].  Documentation also makes use of the ranges reserved in
   [RFC1918].

Does it mean it's appropriate to use the ranges reserved in [RFC1918] in documentation as well, especially when demonstrating the VPN addresses?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:00 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu
> Cc: Loa Andersson; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> Subject: Re: [bess] wglc review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet
> 
> Just a minor point:
> 
> Xuxiaohu wrote: